IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Manpreet Singh @ Manna ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent Date of decision: 11.02.2026 Date of Uploading : 11.02.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Pardeep Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.153 dated 11.09.2019, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 326/323/324/34 of IPC (Section 307 IPC added later on) at Police Station Sadar Faridkot, District Mansa.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that on 10.09.2019 at about 07:30 PM, the complainant Vishal Singh, a student of 10+2 class, alongwith his uncle Kulwinder Singh was proceedings towards the main road to eat water balls (gol gappa) when they were intercepted by the petitioner Manpreet Singh @ Manna and his co-accused namely Satnam Singh, Gora Singh and Mohinder Singh all armed with sharp edged weapons. It has been further alleged that the petitioner raised a lalkara exhorting his co-accused not to let the complainant escape and to teach him a lesson over a previous quarrel. Thereafter, the petitioner, who was armed with a khanda (sword like weapon), inflicted a blow on the right side of the neck of the complainant and thereafter delivered another blow on his left hand. The co-accused also inflicted multiple injuries with swords, gandasi and spear like weapons on various parts of the body of the complainant. When Kulwinder Singh intervened to rescue the complainant, he too was assaulted. The medical evidence reflects multiple sharp injuries on the body of the complainant, out of which injuries No.2, 3 and 4 were subsequently declared grievous in nature. Consequently, Section 326 IPC was added and during trial proceedings, charge under Section 307 IPC was also incorporated. The weapon of offence allegedly used by the petitioner was recovered during investigation. As per prosecution, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been presented and 21 prosecution witness have been cited.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question on account of previous enmity arising out of a minor quarrel that allegedly took place a few days prior to the occurrence. Learned counsel has further iterated that the case in hand is based upon a concocted version and the petitioner has been roped in with an intention to harass him. Learned counsel has emphasized that the petitioner was initially arrested in November 2019 and was granted the concession of regular bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot vide order dated 27.01.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner remained on bail for a considerable period and has been regularly appearing before the Court below except on 01.12.2023 which was neither deliberate nor intentional but on account of the admission of the petitioner in a de-addiction centre. According to learned counsel, the petitioner was in custody since 28.06.2024 and the trial has not made any substantial progress. Although the challan has been presented and as many as 21 prosecution witnesses have been cited and not even a single prosecution witness has been examined till date. Learned counsel has further submitted that since the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time, thus, no useful purpose would be served for continued incarceration of the petitioner. Furthermore, all the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses, being closely related to the complainant and, therefore, there is no likelihood of the petitioner influencing them. On the strength of aforesaid submission, the grant of petition in hand is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner by arguing that the petitioner is the main assailant