Bagga Singh @ Bassi @ Baggi v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M No.58939 of 2025 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.58939 of 2025 Date of Decision : 04.12.2025 Bagga Singh @ Bassi @ Baggi .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***** Present :- Mr. L. S. Sekhon, Advocate and Mr. Guraziz S. Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Raj Karan Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.

**** RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral) 1.

Present second petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.106, dated 17.06.2023, under Sections 341, 323, 506, 148, 149 IPC (Section 307 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Sidhwan Bet, District Ludhiana (Rural).

2.

Succinctly the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Gurjant Singh, son of Makhan Singh. It was alleged that there was some dispute between the complainant and his family members with Bagga Singh @ Buggi (petitioner) and his brother, namely, Ajay Kumar, however the same was compromised but Bagga Singh was nurturing grudge against the complainant. Hence, on 11.06.2023, when the complainant along with his

Bagga Singh @ Baggi (petitioner), who was holding an iron rod, on which garari of cycle was fitted, Gaggi armed with danda and Soni, Vicky, Mani and Kuldeep Singh @ Bittu empty handed came there. Bagga Singh @ Bassi gave 03 continuous blows of iron rod fitted with garari on the head and forehead of the complainant. Ajay Kumar also gave blows of iron rods on his hand and left arm. Gaggi gave a blow of danda on his right arm and others also gave injuries to the complainant. On raising alarm, all the assailants escaped. The request was made to take legal action against the accused. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. During the investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 19.05.2024. On completion of the investigation, the challan was presented and on framing of charges, the trial commenced.

The petitioner approached the Court of learned Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana praying for grant of bail. However, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana, dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 25.08.2025. Being aggrieved, the petitioner earlier approached this Court by way of filing CRM-M-333982024 praying for the grant of bail, however the same was dismissed vide order dated 24.07.2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is again before this Court by way of filing the present second petition praying for grant of bail.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that there is a delay of 06 days in registration of the FIR as the occurrence had taken place on 11.06.2023 whereas the FIR has been

medical record, the injured has taken the opinion from Armaan Hospital, Jalandhar and the opinions are at variance, which are given by the Government Hospital and the Armaan Hospital. He has submitted that the offence under Section 307 IPC is not even prima facie made out, however the same has been added only to implicate the petitioner in a serious case. He has submitted that the petitioner is behind bars since the date of his arrest, i.e. 19.05.2024 and thus has suffered an incarceration of more than 01 year. He has submitted that the complainant is intentionally avoiding his appearance before the learned trial Court only to prolong the incarceration of petitioner. To buttress his arguments, he has submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents as he has never been involved in any other case. He has submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail. 4.

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner was armed with a lethal weapon and gave injuries of the same on the head of the complainant. He has submitted that the same is corroborated by the medical record. He, on instructions, has submitted that out of total 15 prosecution witnesses, no witness has been examined so far. He has produced custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court which is taken on record.

5.

Heard.

6.

On hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 19.05.2024. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner,

offence under Section 307 IPC is prima facie not made out, however, the same would lie within the domain of trial Court. Custody certificate produced would show that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 01 year, 04 months and 29 days as on 03.12.2025. It further reflects that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. Out of total 15 prosecution witnesses, no witness has been examined so far. 7.

The veracity of the allegations and counter 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. 8.

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

9.

Accordingly, the present 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) 04.12.2025 JUDGE rittu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No