Manjit Singh Alias Manjit Singh Chahal v. State Of Punjab
CRM-M No.31931 of 2025 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M No.31931 of 2025 Date of decision : 13.6.2025 Manjit Singh alias Manjit Singh Chahal .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. G.S. Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1.
Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.37 dated 8.6.2024, under Sections 324, 323, 148, 149 of the IPC (Section 326 of IPC added later on vide DDR No.20 dated 9.6.2024), registered at Police Station Ghall Khurd, District Ferozepur.
2.
The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- 'Statement of Sucha Singh Son of Anokh Singh, resident of Killi Nau Abad, Tehsil - Zira, District - Ferozepur, aged about 55 years, mobile no. 9814409702. It is stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and I am doing the work of agriculture. My daughter Sandeep Kaur Wife of Bakhshish Singh Son of Jhirmal Singh, resident of Kaliye Wala has
CRM-M No.31931 of 2025 -2married about 2 years ago. Her dispute is going with her husband. Bakhshish Singh was owned 8 acre land and from which he was sold 4 acre land to Manjit Kaur wife of Manjit Singh, resident of Hakumat Singh Wala and remaining 4 acre land is owned by his mother namely Manjit Kaur wife of Jhirmal Singh, resident of Kaliye Wala. My daughter Sandeep Kaur is residing with me from the last about 9 months. The land which was owned by Bakhshish Singh and sold by him, the case of the said land is pending before the court and mutation of sale deed and said sale deed have been stayed infavour of my daughter Sandeep Kaur. On dated 02.11.
2023; at time about 11:30 AM, I along with my daughter Sandeep Kaur went to Village Hakumat Singh Wala, then Manjit Singh and his father Surjit Singh, Manjit Kaur along with 10-12 unknown persons and 45 ladies, were harvested the paddy crop from the field situated in Village Hakumat Singh Wala and the harvested paddy crop was being loaded into the trolley. Then I told to Manjit Singh that you not harvest the paddy crop: till the decision of learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, which is pending for 07.11.2023. After this also, Manjit Singh did not stopped his harvester combine and Surjit Singh raised a lalkara that lets caught hold them and they cannot be escaped today.
Manjit Singh gave me a Kappa blow to me, which hit at my left side of chest and one more person along with Manjit Singh; namely Sukhmander Singh Son of Gurmukh Singh, resident of Patli Katria gave me a dang blow, which hit at my left side of head and I fell down on the ground. They gave injuries to me; when I was laying on the ground and Manjit Kaur wife of Manjit Singh was manhandling with my daughter Sandeep Kaur and gave beating to her and also tore her cloths. I raised an alarm mardita mardita, then all the above mentioned accused ran away from the spot with their respective weapons. In the meantime, my son Pargat Singh also came at the spot and he took me into his car and got me admitted at Harbans Nursing Hospital, Kot Ise Khan. Here, I am under treatment.
The motive behind the occurrence is that there is stay order with Sandeep Kaur with regard to the land which has been sold by Bakhshish Singh to Manjit Kaur and we were stopped them; to not harvest the paddy crop. Because of this, all the above mentioned accused with their common intension, gave me injuries. The appropriate legal action should be taken against them. I recorded my statement, read over and same is correct. LTI/- above said Sucha Singh.' 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
CRM-M No.31931 of 2025 -3is in custody since 17.4.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question as there is a civil/property dispute between the petitioner and the complainant-side. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the prime foundation of the prosecution case is based upon the medical examination of the complainant/injured, which took place in a private hospital which is unsustainable in law. Learned counsel has further iterated that there is 7 months, inordinate and unexplained, delay in lodging the FIR. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4.
Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 12.6.2025 in Court, which is taken on record.
5.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
6.
The petitioner was arrested on 17.4.2025. It is not in disputation before this Court, at hearing today, that investigation in the case is complete and challan would be presented by the police shortly. The rival contentions made by learned counsel give rise to debatable issues which shall essentially be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the
CRM-M No.31931 of 2025 -4petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. As per the custody certificate dated 12.6.2025 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of one month and twenty five days & is not shown to be involved in any other case.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7.
In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 8.
In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those
CRM-M No.31931 of 2025 -5which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
9.
Ordered accordingly.
10.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 13.6.2025 Ashwani Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No