Mangat Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 19.06.2026 MANGAT SINGH .....Petitioner

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present:- Mr. Rakesh Kumar Kachura, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab.

**** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 1.

The present second petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding provision under Section 439 Cr.P.C.) seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No.152 dated 28.10.2025 under Sections 118 (1), 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and (Section 118 (2) added later on) of BNS (earlier Sections 324, 34 and Section 326 of IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Sadar Jalalabad, District Fazilka (Annexure P-1).

2.

Brief facts of the case are that on 13.10.2025, the complainant, Sharma Singh, along with his nephew Amandeep Singh, was harvesting paddy crop in his fields with the help of a combine harvester. During harvesting, their neighbour Mangat Singh allegedly started irrigating his adjoining field. When the complainant requested him not to release water as it would affect the harvesting operation, an altercation ensued between them. Thereafter, at about 4:00 PM, when the complainant and his nephew returned to bring their tractor-trolley loaded with paddy, Mangat Singh, armed with a sword, and Gurpreet Singh, armed with a stick, allegedly arrived at the spot. Gurpreet Singh raised a lalkara, whereupon Mangat Singh allegedly inflicted a sword blow on the complainant's head, causing him to fall.

Gurpreet Singh thereafter allegedly assaulted the complainant with a stick. When Amandeep Singh intervened to rescue the complainant, he was also allegedly beaten by the assailants. On the arrival of nearby villagers, the accused persons fled from the spot along with their weapons. Consequently, the present FIR came to be registered. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the matter is one of version and cross-version, and that the complainant party had also caused two injuries to the petitioner's wife, namely Soma Bai. In this regard, a cross-case has been registered vide General Diary No. 17 dated 18.10.2025 against the complainant party. It is further argued that the

alleged occurrence took place on 13.10.2025, whereas the FIR was registered after a delay of 15 days, which creates a serious dent in the case set up by the prosecution.

4.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is the main accused. However, he could not controvert the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 12.01.2026, that the investigation in the case stands completed, and that the final report has already been presented on 09.03.2026.

5.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bars since 12.01.2026 and that the matter is one of version and cross-version. Investigation is complete. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court on 09.03.2026. Further, it is yet to be determined which party is the aggressor. Keeping in view the custody undergone and the fact that investigation of the case is complete and that the culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of trial. No useful purpose shall be served by further detention of the accused/petitioner. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6.

In view the above, the present petition is allowed. Thus,

without commenting upon the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the outcome of the trial, the petitioner-Mangat Singh is ordered to be released on regular bail during trial on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. 7.

Nothing observed here-in-above shall be construed as expression of opinion of this Court on merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed without being prejudiced by observations of this Court. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 19.06.2026 parul verma Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. :

Yes/No