Gursewak Singh @ Guri v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 25.05.2026 GURSEWAK SINGH @ GURI ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

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

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

This petition has been filed under Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (erstwhile 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of Regular Bail in case arising out of FIR no.303 dated 18.12.2025 U/S 115 (2), 117 (1), 126(2), 351 (2), 191 (3), 125, 109 of BNS, 2023; Offences u/s 238 of BNS, 2023 and 25 and 27 of Arms Act added subsequently P.S. Sadar, Ludhiana., (pari materia to Sections 323, 325, 341, 506, 148, 338, 307, 201 IPC) Annexure P-1.On the oral request of the ld. counsel for the petitioner, Section 190 BNS is added in headnote as well prayer clause of the petitioner. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with the co-accused, caused injuries to the complainant party. It is further alleged that the petitioner was present at the spot and actively participated in pelting stones and bricks at the complainant party and has been identified in CCTV footage.

-23.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the occurrence has resulted in a version and a cross-version, indicating that both sides have levelled allegations against each other. It is contended that the FIR has been registered with an ulterior motive to settle personal scores and is a consequence of political vendetta at the instance of the ruling dispensation. He further submits that the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the FIR and has been nominated after about 40 days thereof. It is further argued that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 02.02.2026 and, therefore, prays for the grant of regular bail.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Rohit Hans, 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 allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He further submits that the petitioner has been identified in the CCTV footage and was standing at the place of occurrence empty handed. He has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court today, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 03 months and 19 days, he is not involved in any other case. 6.

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

7.

After hearing the rival contentions and considering the fact that in the case in hand, the petitioner is in custody for the 03 months and 19 days;

-3the petitioner is not involved in any other case coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by further incarceration of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted the concession of regular bail 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/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. 25.05.2026 (H.S.GREWAL) renu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No