Gurmukh Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 16.09.2025 Gurmukh Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***** Present :- Mr. Inderpal Singh Deol, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Simran Goria, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Tarurag Gaur, Advocate for the complainant.

**** 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.103, dated 03.06.2025, under Sections 109, 118(1), 118(2), 115(2), 190, 191(3), 351(2) of BNS, registered at Police Station Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab. 2.

Succinctly the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Balwinder Singh. It was alleged that on 01.06.2025, the complainant and his brother, namely, Surjit Singh had gone to water their fields at around 8:00 A.M. On reaching there, Sukhwinder Sigh armed with Kirpan, Gurmukh Singh (petitioner) armed with Khanda, Sajjan Singh empty handed along with 6-7

-2unknown persons, who were armed with sticks and baseball bats arrived there. Sajjan Singh exhorted his accomplices to teach them a lesson and then, on his extortion, Gurmukh Singh with intention to kill the brother of complainant, gave blow of his Khanda, which hit on the left side of his head. The unknown persons also attacked with their respective weapons. Both the complainant and his brother were shifted to the Hospital. Thus, the request was made to take legal action against the culprits. However on the statement, FIR for the offence under Section 109 BNS was registered. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. However, during the investigation, the offence under Section 109 BNS has been deleted. During the investigation, the supplementary statement was recorded on 13.06.2025.

Resultantly, the petitioner was arrested on the same day, i.e. 13.06.2025. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur praying for the grant of bail, however after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur declined the bail applications filed by both the petitioners vide order dated 29.08.2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for the grant of regular bail. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He, at the outset, has submitted that co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Shahbaz Singh @ Sodhi and Gursharan Singh have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 09.09.2025 passed in CRM-M No.40266 of 2025 and CRM-M-41656-2025 and thus, case of the

-3petitioner is at par with that of the co-accused, who have granted bail. He has submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail on parity.

4.

Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has further submitted that the petitioner gave Khanda blow to the complainant. 5.

Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner has played an active role in committing the offence. She has submitted that no prima facie case for the grant of bail to the petitioner is made out. He has further endorsed the fact that co-accused of the petitioner have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 09.09.2025. She has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court and the same is taken on record. 6.

Heard.

7.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner is behind bars since the date of his arrest, i.e. 13.06.2025. Custody certificate produced would show that the petitioner has completed the incarceration of 02 months and 29 days as on 15.09.2025. Custody Certificate further shows that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. Co-accused of the petitioner have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 09.09.2025. 8.

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.

-49.

This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, the Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for the grant of bail on parity.

10.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the 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) 16.09.2025 JUDGE rittu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No