Multan Singh Alias Mastan Singh v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-56378-2025 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-56378-2025 (O&M) Date of decision:16.03.2026 Multan Singh @ Mastan Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present :

Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

  

    ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1.

Prayer in these petitions filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.67 dated 05.08.2022, registered under Sections 307, 324, 323, 427, 506, 120-B, 148, 149 and Section 25 of the Arms Act (Sections 326, 324, 323, 120-B IPC deleted subsequently)  

       2.

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for 1 year, 1 month and 18 days. There is a delay of 04 days in registration of the FIR. It is a case of version and cross version, wherein both sides sustained injuries. As per the inquiry conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police, the injury to the complainant as well as Surjit Singh was self-inflicted. All other co-accused have been granted bail in the present case as also in the DDR registered at the hands of the petitioner party. Though challan was presented on 23.05.2025, however, till date charges have not been framed. In all there are 19 prosecution witnesses. He is involved in two more cases, wherein he is on bail. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382. 3.

The custody certificate dated 15.03.2026, filed by the learned State

CRM-M-56378-2025 (O&M) 2 counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind the bars for 1 year, 01 month and 18 days.

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the petitioner is stated to have fired shots at the complainant Sukhpal Singh, which was opined to be dangerous to life. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the trial and the petitioner being on bail in other cases.

5.

Heard.

6.

Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (supra) had held that, "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc." 7.

               is ! "!" "#!

$    $ challan was presented on 23.05.2025, in all there are 19 prosecution witnesses,      % !%      

 & &   



  '"     (     8.

The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

CRM-M-56378-2025 (O&M) 3 (ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty. (vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile numbers by way of his affidavit to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, he sees to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court.

(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.

8.

It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.

9.

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.

(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 16.03.2026 dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No