Mandeep Nain Alias Monu v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 107+220 CRM-19027-2025 in/and CRM-M No.12711 of 2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.05.2025 Mandeep Nain @ Monu ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL Present:- Mr. K.S. Brar, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.

Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, DAG, Punjab.

*** H.S. Grewal, J. (Oral) CRM-19027-2025

The present application has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for making amendment/ correction in headnote by adding Section 238 of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 in the head note of the petition as the same was added later on. For the reasons given in the application, the same is allowed and amended headnote is taken on record.

Registry is directed to place the same at is appropriate place. Main case
This is a petition for regular bail filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in case bearing FIR No. 452 dated 11.10.2024 under Sections 115(2)/ 110/ 351(3)/ 332/ 190 of BNS, 2023 (Section 238 of BNS added later on) registered at Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that earlier two persons had entered

-2the hotel of the complainant and started recording the video of the daughter of his paternal aunt-Ramandeep Kaur upon which the complainant stopped them from doing so. Thereafter, they came after some time along with other persons accompanied by the present petitioner-Mandeep Nain. They all were armed with batons in their hands and gave injuries to the complainant and one Dharampal with the intention to kill them.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated being a servant at the adjoining hotel and due to professional rivalry. Moreover, there is no specific overt act attributed to the petitioner as the allegations are collective and general in nature. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State 6.

Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner by way of filing of custody certificate which is taken on record, on the ground that the injuries attributed to the petitioner are grievous in nature. He further submits that challan has been presented and charges are yet to be framed.

7.

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

8.

In view of the above submission of learned counsels, since the trial is yet to commence and the same is likely to take time, the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 06 months and continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, I deem 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 granted concession of

-3regular bail in the present case, on his furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. The pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 10.

It is however, made clear that in case during his bail, the petitioner indulges in any offence, the State shall be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

08th May, 2025 (H.S. GREWAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No