IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.126 CRM-M-66120-2025 Date of Decision: 09.03.2026 PARDEEP SINGH ...Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. Sonpreet S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab.

*****

MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral)

1. This is the first petition for grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by the petitioner in case FIR No. 167 dated 14.11.2023 registered under Sections 307, 323, 506, 148, 149 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and later on Section 325 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act were added, at Police Station Doraha, District Khanna.

2. Briefly stated, the allegations in the present case are that the petitioner along with the co-accused caused injuries to the injured Kiranpreet Singh during the occurrence. It is alleged that Kiranpreet Singh received one injury caused by a Kirpan blow on his head, on account of which Section 307 IPC was added in the present case. The role attributed to the present petitioner is that he allegedly gave a blow with a baseball bat on the leg of one of the injured persons. It has further been alleged that the injuries suffered by Jagdeep Singh were declared simple in nature.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the only role attributed to the petitioner is that he was armed with a baseball bat and allegedly caused an injury on the leg of injured Jagdeep Singh. It is submitted that the injury attracting the offence under Section 307 IPC has been attributed to a co-accused and not to the present petitioner. It is further contended that the co-accused namely Gursimran Singh @ Simma and Jasvir Singh have already been granted bail in the present case and the case of the petitioner stands on parity with them. It is also argued that the petitioner is in custody for the last one year and eight months and therefore he deserves the concession of regular bail.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and submitted that serious allegations have been levelled against the accused persons as they have caused injuries to the injured persons during the occurrence. It is further submitted that one of the injuries has been declared dangerous to life which attracts the offence under Section 307 IPC. It is argued that the petitioner was part of the unlawful assembly and therefore he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, this Court finds that the co-accused namely Gursimran Singh @ Simma and Jasvir Singh have already been granted bail in the present case and the case of the present petitioner stands on parity with them. The role attributed to the petitioner is limited to causing a baseball bat blow on the leg, which is a non-vital part of the body. The injury attracting the offence under Section 307 IPC has been attributed to a co- accused and not to the present petitioner. The petitioner is stated to be in custody for the last one year and eight months and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude. In these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period.

6. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

7. However, nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

8. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(MANDEEP PANNU)

09.03.2026 JUDGE Anu