Angrej Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 23.03.2026 ANGREJ SINGH ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, 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. 140 dated 04.11.2023 under Sections 458, 323, 324, 148, 149, 382, 427, 459, 325, 326, 307 IPC registered at Police Station Dera Baba Nanak, District Gurdaspur. 2.

The prosecution case is that the petitioner, along with his co-accused, armed with deadly weapons, forcibly entered the house of the complainant (father of the petitioner) with the intention to attack him. It is alleged that the petitioner raised a lalkara to teach him a lesson for not giving him a share in the land and inflicted dattar blows on the head, forehead, right eye, nose, and ear of the complainant. He also inflicted a dattar blow on the face of the complainant's son namely Nishan Singh (brother of the petitioner), causing injuries to his forehead and nose, and further caused injuries to the wife of the complainant.

-23.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the petitioner also sustained three injuries on his body; however, the police failed to take any action against the complainant side, whereas the present case is a case of version and cross-version. It is further argued that the complainant is not appearing before the Court for recording his statement despite the issuance of non-bailable warrants against him. The petitioner is in custody since 21.08.2024.

4.

On the other hand, ld. State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as he allegedly cause brutal injuries to his own father and brother with deadly weapons. 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 01 year 06 months and 24 days and is not involved in any other case. It is also submitted that challan has been submitted, no witness has been examined so far.

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 01 year 06 months and 24 days; petitioner is not involved in any other case; no witness has been examined so far and that the trial 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. Moreover, it is a settled principle of law that "bail is the rule and

-3jail is the exception." 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 regular 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 indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. 10.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 23.03.2026 (H.S.GREWAL) renu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No