Kuldeep Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 18.03.2026 KULDEEP SINGH ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Sarrib Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr. Anmol Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Pandher, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 25 dated 25.03.2025 under Sections 110, 126(2), 115(2), 191(3), 190, 324(4), 351(2), 61(2) of BNS registered at Police Station Bareta, District Mansa. 2.

Mr. Sarrib Aggarwal, Advocate appears and filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner by obtaining 'No Objection' from previous counsel and the same is taken on record.

3.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with his co-accused have inflicted 19 injuries on the person of the complainant and have raised lalkaras and threatened the complainant in the name of Kulwant Singh @ Kala and Paramjit Singh.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and there is an unexplained delay of five days in the

-2registration of the FIR. He further submits that the petitioner has been nominated on the basis of a supplementary statement recorded on 17.05.2025, and no specific injury has been attributed to him. He further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 20.05.2025 and, therefore, prays for the grant of regular bail.

4.

On the other hand, ld. State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail on the ground that the petitioner is a member of unlawful assembly and offences against the petitioner are serious. He has filed the custody certificate in the Court today and the same is taken on record. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 09 months and 23 days and is involved in one three more cases. It is also submitted that challan has been filed and charges are yet to be framed. 5.

I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record.

6.

After hearing the rival contentions and considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 09 months and 23 days, charges are yet to be framed and the trial has not yet commenced and is likely to take considerable time to conclude, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by further incarceration of the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

7.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on

-3regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

8.

Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

9.

It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulging in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. 10.

Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. 18.03.2026 (H.S.GREWAL) renu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No