Ranjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 07.05.2026 RANJIT SINGH ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Abhaysher Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. D.S.Bhinder, Advocate for the complainant. H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 12 dated 11.02.2025 under Sections 109, 118(1), 126(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station Kotbhai, District Police Sri Muktsar Sahib. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with his co-accused, armed with weapons, wrongfully restrained the complainant and caused injuries to him with an intention to kill him. The petitioner was allegedly armed with a kirch at the time of the alleged incident and inflicted a kirch blow on the abdomen of the complainant, which has been declared dangerous to life.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR has been falsely registered by the complainant in connivance with his accomplices by exerting political pressure upon the police in order to save themselves from the allegations of causing grievous injuries to the petitioner. He further submits

-2that the wife of the petitioner is suffering from a cancer-related ailment and is dependent upon the petitioner. Hence, he prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

4.

Learned State counsel assisted with counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner for the grant of regular bail on the ground that the petitioner has committed serious offence. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in the Court today and the same is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 11 months and 21 days. He further submits that out of 24 cited prosecution witnesses none has been examined so far.

5.

I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record.

6.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 11 months and 21 days; out of 24 cited prosecution witnesses none has been examined so far and the trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by further incarceration of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

7.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

-38.

Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

9.

It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulging in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. 10.

Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. 07.05.2026 (H.S.GREWAL) renu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No