Manpreet Singh Alias Ghota v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-65344-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.08.2025 MANPREET SINGH @ GHOTA ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB .. Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL
 Mr. J.S. Moudgill, Advocate for the petitioner. *** H.S. Grewal, J. (Oral)
  The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya -1Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking regular bail in FIR No.123 dated 01.09.2024 under Section 115(2), 126(2), 109, 351(3), 191(3), 190 of BNS registered at Police Station City Sunam, District Sangrur. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner alongwith his coaccused has caused injuries to the complainant, however, one grievous injury has been attributed to his co-accused namely Kamalpreet Singh @ Kamal who has already been granted bail vide order dated 22.04.2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. Also, other co-accused namely Manoj Kumar @ Mojji @ Monu and Harjinder Singh @ Happy @Rajinder Singh have also been granted bail vide order dated 08.07.2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. The petitioner has not been attributed any grievous injury caused to the complainant-party.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has undergone a custody period of more than 11 months and 12 days and trial in the present case is yet to commence.

4.

Notice of motion.

Sonia Puri 2025.08.21 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

5.

Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the -2respondent-State.

6.

Learned counsel for the State by way of filing of custody certificate, vehemently opposes the grant of concession of regular bail and does not refute the fact that the petitioner has undergone a custody period of 11 months and 12 days and that the trial is yet to commence. 7.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.

8.

Keeping in view the above and the fact that the custody undergone by the petitioner is 11 months and 12 days; the trial is yet to commence and since the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a long time, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. Therefore this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. 9.

Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted the concession of regular bail in the present case, on his furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/ Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

10.

It is however, made clear that in case during his bail, if the petitioner indulges in any offence, the State shall be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 11.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 20th August, 2025 (H.S. GREWAL) Sonia Puri JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No Sonia Puri 2025.08.21 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document