Harpreet Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 20.05.2025 HARPREET SINGH ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr.G.S.Bajwa, Advocate for the petitioner.

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This is a second petition filed for grant of regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS in case FIR No. 91 dated 01.10.2019 under Sections 324, 326, 506, 148, 149 IPC (Section 307 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Ramdas, District Amritsar Rural.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with co-accused have caused injuries to the complainant which are dangerous to life and attract Section 307 IPC as well. He further submits that the matter has been compromised between the parties. The petitioner is in custody since 05.11.2024. 3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Mr. Manvir Singh Toor, AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate in

-2the Court today, which is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 06 months and 14 days. He vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He further submits that out of 13 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined. 5.

Mr. Gobind Singh Randhawa, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3. He has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of them in the Court today and the same is taken on record. He fairly admits that the compromise has been effected between the parties and he has no objection if the concession of regular bail is granted to the petitioner. 6.

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

7.

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 14 days and 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.

8.

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.

-39.

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

(H.S.GREWAL) 20.05.2025 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No