Dipreet Singh Alias Golu v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-27597-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.08.2025 DIPREET SINGH ALIAS GOLU ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB .. Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL
 Mr. Lakshay Bector, Advocate for the petitioner.

*** H.S. Grewal, J. (Oral)
  The present petition has been filed under Section 439 of Code of -1Criminal Procedure, seeking regular bail in FIR No.55 dated 17.03.2023 under Sections 307, 323, 324 IPC, 1860 (Sections 120-B, 473 of IPC, 1860 added later on) registered at Police Station Salem Tabri, District Ludhiana. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant's husband Arun Bhatti was attacked by unknown persons with sharp edged weapons. None was named in the FIR, however, later on one Gulshan Kumar @ Sheru in his disclosure statement had named the petitioner, being one of the persons accompanying him during the said assault on the husband of the complainant. Apart from this, the petitioner was already in custody in another case at the time when he was named in the disclosure statement. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further states that Coordinate Bench of this Court had already granted bail vide order dated 23.01.2025

passed in CRM-M-58197-2023, to co-accused namely, Gulshan Kumar @ -2Sheru on whose statement, the petitioner was implicated in the present case. He further states that the petitioner has undergone custody of more than 02 years and 01 month and trial in the present case is yet to commence. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

6.

Learned counsel for the State by way of filing of custody certificate, vehemently opposes the grant of concession of regular bail and does not refute the fact that the petitioner has undergone a custody period of 02 years, 01 month and 10 days and the trial is yet to commence. He further states that the petitioner is involved in 07 more cases 7.

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

8.

Keeping in view the above and the fact that the custody period undergone by the petitioner is 02 years, 01 month and 10 days; the trial is yet to commence and since the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a long time; further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. Therefore this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

9.

Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted concession of regular bail in the present case, on his furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/ Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. The pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

10.

It is however, made clear that in case during his bail, if the -3petitioner indulges in any offence, the State shall be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 11.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 19th August, 2025 (H.S. GREWAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No