Gurwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.221 Date of Decision: 01.04.2026 GURWINDER SINGH

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. Pratap Singh Gill and Ms. Eknoor Kaur Gill, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr. Hardeep Hans, AAG, Punjab.

***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) 1.

This is the first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 93 dated 10.10.2025, registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 351(3), 61(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act (with Sections 118(1) and 118(2) of BNS, 2023 added later on), at Police Station Nandgarh, District Bathinda.

2.

Briefly stated, the present FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant Harjinder Singh to the effect that there was a dispute regarding land of Dera of Baba Gareeb Dass measuring about 21 acres, which was being managed under the directions of Baba Manpreet Dass. It is alleged that on 09.10.2025, when the complainant was going to the fields, he noticed certain vehicles from which several persons alighted, some of them armed with weapons. Harcharan Singh allegedly raised a lalkara and co-accused Love Preet Singh @ Labbi gave a kirpan blow on the

head of the complainant, and when he tried to save himself, his arm was hit. It is further alleged that while the complainant was lying injured, the present petitioner Gurvinder Singh gave a stick blow on the right side of his head. Thereafter, the assailants fled from the spot. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that only injury No.2 is attributed to the petitioner, which has been declared simple in nature. It is further submitted that although initially it was alleged that the arm of the injured was amputated, however, as per the medical opinion, no such amputation has taken place and the injury on the arm has been declared grievous, attracting Section 326 IPC, which is attributed to coaccused Love Preet Singh, who is already in custody. It is further contended that even the allegation under Section 307 IPC is primarily based upon the said injury on the arm, which has also been attributed to the said co-accused. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody for the last four months and 27 days and not even a single witness has been examined till date. The trial is likely to take long time and since only a simple injury is attributed to the petitioner, he deserves to be released on regular bail. 4.

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application and submitted that serious allegations have been levelled in the present case. It is contended that the injury on the arm of the complainant has been declared grievous in nature attracting Section 326 IPC and the same reflects the gravity of the occurrence. However, it is fairly conceded that as per the latest medical opinion, the arm of the injured has not been amputated as was earlier believed.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

6.

In the present case, it is not disputed that the injury attributed to the petitioner is simple in nature. The grievous injury on the arm has been attributed to co-accused Love Preet Singh, who is already in custody. It has also come on record that the earlier apprehension regarding amputation of arm is not substantiated, and the injury has been opined to be grievous in nature. The petitioner is in custody for the last four months and 27 days and admittedly not even a single prosecution witness has been examined so far. The trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. 7.

Without commenting upon the merits of the case, considering the nature of allegations, the role attributed to the petitioner, the period of custody and the stage of trial, this Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail.

8.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned.

9.

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) 01.04.2026 JUDGE Anu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No