Vishal v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-21597-2025 Date of decision: April 30th, 2025 Vishal .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Nagar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Shiva Khurmi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL , J. (ORAL) Petitioner is seeking the concession of regular bail in FIR No.79 dated 03.06.2024 under Sections 307, 326, 323, 506, 34 of the IPC registered at Police Station Shahkot, District Jalandhar. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner has been named in the FIR in question, however, even as per the case of the prosecution itself, the petitioner has been attributed a simple injury on the nose of complainant Lovepreet Singh. It has been submitted by the counsel that since the petitioner has now been in custody for almost ten months having been arrested on 11.07.2024, challan has been presented and charges also framed, further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose as none of the 25 witnesses cited by the prosecution have been examined. 3.

Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite has not disputed the PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.04.30 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-21597-2025 -2custody period of the petitioner nor has he, on instructions from S.I. Nirmal Singh, disputed that after the charges were framed, none of the prosecution witnesses have been examined.

4.

On a pointed query put to the learned State counsel, he, on instructions, has not even disputed that the petitioner has been attributed a simple injury on the nose of the complainant, however, it has been asserted by the learned counsel that the petitioner along with the co-accused had, without any provocation, attacked the complainant; the petitioner was armed with a datar with which he attacked the complainant.

5.

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

6.

The petitioner although named in the FIR has not been attributed any grievous much less injury inviting the mischief of offence under Section 307 of the IPC. The investigation is complete and challan stands presented and so do the charges stand framed. The possibility of the trial concluding in the near future does not arise as none of the 25 witnesses cited by the prosecution has been examined. 7.

In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner be admitted to bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. April 30th, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.04.30 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh