Gurpreet Singh Alias Gopi v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH CRM-M-43423-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.10.2025 GURPREET SINGH ALIAS GOPI ... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB .. Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Mr. Varinder Basa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manjinder Singh Bhullar, DAG, Punjab.
Sanjay Vashisth, J. (Oral) This is the petition has been filed by the petitioner-Gurpreet Singh -1- @ Gopi aged 29 years, under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail in FIR No.181 dated 09.12.2024 under Sections 109, 118(1), 115(2), 351(2), 190, 193(3) of BNS registered at Police Station Dinanagar, Gurdaspur, Punjab.
2.
As per FIR version, 5/6 boys by entering in the KFC Restaurant of the complainant - Jagjot Singh, in an intoxicated condition, argued and talked badly, and thereupon, fought with the complainant party. Accused who were calling each other as, (i) Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi, (ii) Jashan, (iii) Rajesh Kumar (@ Fouji, (iv) Mandeep @ Manna and two unknown boys, dragged the complainant and other victims out of the hotel/restaurant. Petitioner Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi gave a datar blow on the head of complainant Jagjot Singh, and the injury so caused was opined to be an injury dangerous to life.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that with the intervention of -2respectables, dispute between the complainant party and the accused party has been resolved completely and now, complainant Jagjot Singh, does not want any further legal action against the petitioner and other accused persons. In this regard, counsel refers the affidavit dated 15.07.2025. Further submits that incident took place on 05.12.2024 and just after two days, complainant was discharged from the hospital on 07.12.2024 Even FIR was got registered on 09.12.2024, i.e., after a period of 04 days. In actual, whether offence u/s 307 of IPC is made out or not, is a questionable issue. Petitioner is behind bars since 09.12.2024 and dispute having been compromised, thus, prays for grant of bail to the petitioner. 4.
On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed reply by way of status report dated 25.10.2025 along with the medical report dated 22.10.2025. the said reply / status report alongwith the appended documents are taken on record.
5.
In regard to the submissions addressed by counsel for the petitioner, learned DAG submits that he has no instruction with regard to the settlement between the parties. As far as any specific injury, if any, caused is concerned, there is nothing substantial pointed out in the aforementioned reply and the appended documents in that regard.
6.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant also submits that he has resolved the dispute amicably with the petitioner and thus endorses the statement made by the petitioner in that regard. 7.
I have heard the submissions made by the parties and noticed the fact explained by the petitioner and the other respective counsel. The petitioner is inside jail since 27.05.2025 and the dispute, as stated by the respective
counsels, has been already resolved amicably. Also, no specific injury has been -3pointed out to be dangerous to life, either by learned counsel for the State or by that of the complainant.
8.
In view of the circumstances and primarily the fact that the dispute has been resolved by the injured / complainant party with the petitioner party, no purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner anymore inside the jail. I therefore, deem it appropriate to allow the petition and thus, the prayer made in the present petition is accepted and 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 / Area Magistrate / Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 9.
Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.
10.
Any of the discussion done and recorded hereabove, 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.
11.
Petition stands disposed of.
27th October, 2025 (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether Reportable :
Yes/No