Dharminder Singh Alias Nanni v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 108-1 Decided on : 08.04.2026 DHARMINDER SINGH ALIAS NANNI ......Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ......Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

Mr. Gaurav Datta, Advocate, and Mr. KPS Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Mr. K.K. Saini, Advocate, for the complainant.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1.

The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- Name of Petitioner(s) FIR No.

Date Section(s) Police Station District Dharminder Singh @ Nanni, aged about 27 years 17.01.2025 109, 118(1), 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of BNS Block Majri SAS Nagar (Mohali) 2.

After hearing the submissions addressed by counsel for the petitioner, on 06.03.2026, following order was passed:- "i) Occurrence in the present case took place at about 9:40 a.m. on 16.01.2025, when a total of four accused persons came together in a black-coloured

Baleno car. Injured in the present case is Harchand Singh, and the complainant is Amanpreet Singh, who is the nephew of the injured Harchand Singh.

ii) Accused Dharminder Singh alias Nanni, armed with a kirpan, allegedly inflicted a blow on the head of Harchand Singh;

Accused Ravinder Singh @ Roda, armed with an axe, allegedly inflicted a blow on the right leg of the injured Harchand Singh;

Accused Chamanpreet Singh @ Chinni allegedly inflicted a gandassi blow on the left leg of the injured Harchand Singh;

One more unknown person, armed with a danda, allegedly inflicted a blow on the left leg of the injured.

iii) During the course of investigation, it was found that accused Ravinder Singh @ Roda and Chamanpreet Singh @ Chinni were not present at the spot; however, they had allegedly conspired to cause injuries to Harchand Singh.

Noticing the said aspect, both of them were granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the Court below, and the said orders have been assailed before this Court by way of two separate petitions, namely CRM-M-34966-2025 and CRM-M34970-2025, which are listed today. iv) Third accused-Dharminder Singh @ Nanni, has filed a regular bail petition, i.e. CRM-M36109-2025, and is attributed with inflicting the kirpan blow on the head of the injured Harchand Singh.

While noticing the respective roles attributed to the accused persons and also the injuries suffered by the injured, reference was made in order dated 08.12.2025, which reads as under:

"2.

Occurrence has taken place in the morning of 16.01.2025, in which, Harchand Singh was caused following injuries:- Sr.

No.

Injuries Marked Injury Number 1.

Fracture of left forearm Yes 2.

Both bone Fracture of left distal end of leg Yes 3.

BOTH FRACTURES OF RIGHT LEG (PROXIMAL TIBIA AND FIBULA FRACTURE Yes

4.

Multiple punctured wound present over right leg with no sensory and motor deficit Yes 5.

Lacerated wound of 5x1x1 cm present over right temporal region Yes 3.

It is informed that the injured was discharged from the hospital on 07.02.2025. In the FIR, the following specific injuries have been attributed to the accused persons:- (i) Ravinder Singh @ Roda s/o Mohan Singh, armed with iron-handled axe, gave blow on the right leg of injured - Harchand Singh.

(ii) Dharminder Singh @ Nanni s/o Sadhu Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-361092025), armed with kirpan, gave a kirpan blow on the head of injured - Harchand Singh.

(iii) Chamanpreet Singh @ Chinni s/o Sant Singh, armed with gandasa, gave a gandasa blow on the left leg of the injured - Harchand Singh.

(iv) Unknown person, armed with wooden stick, gave a stick blow on the left arm of the injured - Harchand Singh."

v) Since injured and complainant are yet to be examined, and the next date is fixed before the learned trial Court on 23.03.2026, adjourned to 08.04.2026. vi) Public Prosecutor concerned and learned trial Court are directed to record the statements of the aforementioned material witnesses at the first instance, failing which the reasons for non-recording of the statements shall be reported to this Court on the next date fixed. vii) Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the learned trial Court concerned for information and necessary compliance.

viii) A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases."

3.

Continuing the submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that injured as well as complainant have already been examined on 23.03.2026. It is further contended that petitioner is in custody for a period of approximately one year and two months, and considering

that 13 more witnesses remain to be examined, petitioner is entitled to the concession of regular bail in the present case. 4.

On advance notice and in response to the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel, produces the custody certificate dated 07.04.2026 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner. As per the custody certificate, in the present case, petitioner has already undergone 01 year 02 months and 19 days period inside jail. 5.

Learned State counsel, as well as counsel for the complainant, while opposing the prayer and submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submit that petitioner is not entitled to any kind of leniency for the purpose of grant of bail, on the ground that the injured was brutally assaulted collectively by all the accused persons. However, it is not disputed that the material witnesses, i.e. complainant-Amanpreet Singh and injured-Harchand Singh, have already been examined before the Court below.

6.

This Court has heard the submissions addressed by learned counsel for the parties and has also perused the record available on file, and finds that since the material witnesses, i.e. complainant and injured, already stand examined, there remains little likelihood of their being influenced by the petitioner, so as to affect the recording of their statements. Moreover, petitioner has remained in custody for a period of more than one year, and conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable

time, particularly in view of the fact that several witnesses are yet to be examined.

7.

Considering the totality of circumstances, nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the factors noticed here above, including the fact that the material witnesses have already been examined, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the present case.

Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

8.

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly. 9.

Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. 10.

Petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 08.04.2026 Lavisha Whether Speaking/Reasoned:

YES/NO Whether Reportable:

YES/NO