High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/33989/2026allowed

Amarjeet Singh v. State Of Punjab

2026-06-23Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl3 pages

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH (209) Date of decision: - 23.06.2026 Amarjeet Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present:- Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Senior Advocate, (Through VC), with Mr. Randeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate for Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate for the complainant.

**** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1.

This is a first petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.28 dated 12.03.2026, under Sections 109, 118(1), 118(2), 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 (Sections 307, 324, 323, 326, 506, 34 IPC) registered at Police Station Kalanur, District Gurdaspur.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the father of the petitioner was also injured in the incident and has referred to the MLR (Annexure P-4) to show that six injuries were suffered by the father of the petitioner, namely, Rattan

-2Singh. It is further submitted that although a cross-version was to be registered but the statement could not be made by the petitioner and his father as all male members of the family were arrested. It is stated that the petitioner has been in custody since 25.03.2026 and the investigation in the present case has been completed and the challan has already been presented. It is further stated that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. It is argued that two injuries which were attributed to the petitioner are both on the non-vital part i.e. on the wrist of the left hand and on the left arm. It is submitted that the injured is now hale and hearty and is out of hospital.

Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application and have submitted that both the injuries given by the petitioner are grievous injuries. 4.

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book.

Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, more so, the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 25.03.2026 and the investigation is complete and the challan has already been presented and also the fact that it is the case of the petitioner that even father of the petitioner was injured in the incident and had suffered six injuries as per the MLR (Annexure P-4) and also the fact that the injuries which have been attributed to the petitioner are both on non-vital part i.e. wrist of the left hand and also the left arm and also the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other case, the present petition is allowed and the

-3petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/ Duty Magistrate, subject to him not being required in any other case. 6.

However, it is made clear that in case, any act is done by the petitioner to threaten or influence the complainant or any of the witnesses, then it would be open to the State to move an application for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner.

Nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition. ( VIKAS BAHL ) June 23, 2026 JUDGE naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking?

Yes Whether reportable?