##PAGE1##

CRM-M No.13436 of 2026 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

143 *****

CRM-M No.13436 of 2026 Date of decision : 25.3.2026

Date of uploading : 25.3.2026

Sukhveer Singh @ Sukhbir Singh @ Kaddu ………….Petitioner Versus

State of Punjab …….Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present: Mr. Himanshu Chhabra, Advocate, for the petitioner

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab

---

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present 2^nd petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.2 dated 6.1.2025 under Sections 109, 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 118(2), 351(3), 126(2), 190, 191(3) and 238 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station

Chhajli, District Sangrur.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that on 5.1.2025 at about 11:30 p.m. when the complainant alongwith his friends were returning to their home from gurudwara, the petitioner alongwith other co-accused, came in two cars, armed with sword, khapra, iron grari, stick and gandasa, attacked the complainant-side and caused multiple injuries

to them.

ASHWANI KUMAR

2026.03.25 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M No.13436 of 2026 -2-

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 20.1.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has not attributed any injury which has resulted into invocation of Section 109 of BNS (erstwhile Section 307 of IPC). Learned counsel has further submitted that as per the medical material regarding the injuries, brought forth on record, there is nothing dangerous to life. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is a man with no

criminal antecedents. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 24.3.2026

in Court, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the

available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 20.1.2025 wherein after investigation was carried out; challan was prepared qua the petitioner on 5.3.2025 and subsequently filed. Total 25 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which 4 stand examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. It is not in dispute that all the injured have been examined as prosecution witnesses. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it

ASHWANI KUMAR

2026.03.25 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M No.13436 of 2026 -3-

may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of

justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1 As per custody certificate dated 24.3.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year, 2 months and 2 days & is not shown to be involved in any other

case.

6.2 Indubitably, the present petition is the 2nd attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.2.2026. Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially extended incarceration of the petitioner as also slow pace of trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA-S-2332-2023 titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and

another;