Inderjit Singh @ Buggi v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:05.08.2025 Inderjit Singh @ Buggi ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:

Mr. A.S. Sarwara, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.

...

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

1.

The instant petition has been filed under Section Section 483 of the BNSS seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No.126, dated 28.09.2024, under Sections 309(4), 331(4) of the BNS (Setion 109 of the BNS added lateron), registered at Police Station Barnala, District Barnala.

2.

The aforementioned FIR had been registered on the basis of complaint lodged by the complainant Paramjit Kaur alleging that on the intervening night of 27/28.09.2024 at about 1:00 AM, she had woken up to ease herself and had gone to washroom. She was alone at her home. While returning towards her room, she was intercepted by a youth, who pulled her inside the room, locked the door of the same and tried to strangulate her while pointing knife towards her and demanded whatever money she was

-2having. Out of fear, she gave cash amount of Rs.5000/- kept in her house and then while extending threats to kill her if she raised alarm, he jumped over the wall of the house and escaped. She alleged that he was seen by her neighbour Dilbara Singh at that time. On raising alarm by her, her neighbours had gathered and then she had come to know about the name of the petitioner. After registration of the FIR, Investigation proceedings were initiated. The victim was medically examined. The petitioner was arrested on 29.09.2024. Offence under Section 109 of the BNS was added. Investigation now stands completed and the petitioner is facing trial for commission of the aforementioned offences.

3.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since long. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be released on bail.

4.

Status report has been filed. Learned State counsel has argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and in view of the gravity thereof, he does not deserve to be released on bail. 5.

This Court has heard rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. 6.

The petitioner is alleged to have criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant by night after making preparation for causing hurt to her and is further alleged to have committed offence of robbery and also made an attempt to kill her by causing injuries to her. The complainant had sustained simple injuries on her person. The trial will take time as only 1 out

-3of 16 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. The victim stand examined and there are no chances of the petitioner's intimidating her. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Keeping in view the period spent by the petitioner in custody and the above discussed facts and circumstances peculiar to the case but without meaning to make any comment on the merits thereof, lest the same prejudice the trial, this Court is of the considered opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

(MANISHA BATRA) 05.08.2025 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No