Jassi Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 28.04.2026 JASSI SINGH ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT Present:- Mr. Pardeep Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 (corresponding Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 25 dated 25.03.2025 under Sections 110, 126(2), 115(2), 191(3), 190, 324(4), 351(2), 61(2) of BNS, 2023 (Section 117(2) BNS added later on vide DDR No.31 dated 01.07.2025), registered at Police Station Bareta, District Mansa.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with his co-accused have inflicted 19 injuries on the person of the complainant and have raised lalkaras and threatened the complainant in the name of Kulwant Singh @ Kala and Paramjit Singh.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and there is an unexplained delay of five days in the registration of the FIR. He further submits that the petitioner has been nominated on the basis of a supplementary statement recorded on 17.05.2025, and no specific injury has been attributed to him. He further submits that co-

-2accused Kuldeep Singh and Shekhar Aajad have already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court. He further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 20.05.2025 and, therefore, prays for the grant of regular bail.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Rohit Hans, learned DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail on the ground that the petitioner is a member of unlawful assembly and offences against the petitioner are serious. He has filed the custody certificate in the Court today and the same is taken on record. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 11 months and 04 days. It is also submitted that challan has been filed and charges are yet to be framed. 6.

I have heard the submissions made by the parties and have gone through the record.

7.

In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 11 months and 04 days, co-accused has already been granted bail and that the trial is likely to take a long time as none of the prosecution witness has been examined so far, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial as the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. 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

-3regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

9.

Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

10.

It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. (H.S.GREWAL) 28.04.2026 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No