Harjinder Singh v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 02.09.2025 Harjinder Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Sukhbir Maandi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab.
***** RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral) 1.
Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.85, dated 09.05.2024, under Sections 326, 325, 323, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 201 of IPC was added later on), registered at Police Station Beas, District Amritsar (Rural).
2.
Succinctly the facts of the case are that the FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant Sharanjit Singh to the effect that on 07.10.2023 at about 5.30 p.m he alongwith his father Chanchal Singh were going towards their fields, when Karam Singh came and raised lalkara, whereupon Tarsem Singh gave blow of datar to him which hit on left side of his head. Kashmir Singh gave blow of gandasi which hit on his head and he fell down on the ground, whereupon Tarsem Singh again gave reverse blow of his datar on his left knee. When his father Chanchal Singh came forward to rescue him, present petitioner Harjinder Singh gave blow of gandasi on the head of Chanchal Singh and when he fell down on the ground, Kanwaljit Kaur wife of Harjit Singh accused
gave blow of danda on the left arm and knee of Chanchal Singh. Thus, request was made to take legal action against the accused. 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the alleged occurrence had taken place on 07.10.2023 whereas the FIR has been lodged after 7 months i.e. on 09.05.2024. He has submitted that in the same occurrence, sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the petitioner namely Kanwaljit Kaur was also injured, who suffered 5 injuries as is evident from the MLR dated 13.10.2023, but the police did not record the version of the petitioner's side. He has submitted that by recording the version of the complainant side only, the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the occurrence. It has submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and is behind bars since the date of his arrest i.e. 13.05.2025.
He has submitted that the investigation is already complete and challan has been presented. He has submitted that once the police did not record the version of the petitioner's side, they had no other alternative remedy then to file complaint before the learned Magistrate at Baba Bakala Amritsar, which is pending adjudication. He has submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and thus, he deserves to be granted regular bail.
4.
Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner has been attributed gandasi blow on complainant's father. He has submitted that the injury attributed to the petitioner has been declared grievous in nature. On instruction, he has submitted that the investigation is already complete and challan has been presented. He has produced
custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court and the same is taken on record.
5.
Heard.
On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it has transpired that the occurrence in the present cases had taken place on 07.10.2023, however, the FIR was lodged on 09.05.2024 i.e. after 7 months, as submitted before this Court and both the sides have suffered injuries. However, the FIR had been lodged only on the statements of complainant's side. Custody certificate produced would show that the petitioner has completed incarceration of 03 month and 19 days as on 01.09.2025. It further reflects that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.
7.
The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court. The trial of the case will take sufficiently long time.
8.
Thus, keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) 02.09.2025 JUDGE Geeta Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No