Rahul Sharma v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 05.08.2025 RAHUL SHARMA .....PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL

Present:

Mr. K.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

This petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 39 dated 18.05.2024 under Sections 307/324/323/427/148/149 of IPC (25/54/59 of Arms Act 1959 later on added vide GD No. 12 dated 09.08.2024) registered at Police Station City Zira, District Ferozepur (Annexure P-1). 2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with his co-accused had entered into the hospital where the complaint had gone to visit his relative and the present petitioner was stated to be armed with Kapa and gave a blow on the head of the complainant. The injury attributed to the petitioner stated to be simple in nature.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the matter

has been settled between the parties except with the complainant. The co-accused has already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Gautam Thapar, Sr. DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and filed reply in the Court, which is taken on record. Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner by filing the custody certificate in the Court today, which is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year and 8 days and is not invovled in any other case. He further submits that charges are yet to be framed and conclusion of trial will take long time.

6.

Mr. Aman Mittal, Advocate with Mr. Harkirat Singh, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 7.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year and 8 days, the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, this Court deems it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

9.

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 bonds, surety bonds to the

satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

10.

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

11.

Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (H.S.GREWAL) 05.08.2025 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/ reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No