IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sachin Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 20.03.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 24.03.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 24.03.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full

4 Full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not

5 reasons thereof applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Ms. Navdeep Kaur Brar, Advocate with Mr. Ramandeep Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J :-

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 130 dated 30.05.2025 registered under Sections 109, 118(1),115(2), 190, 191(3), 118(2), 117(2), 238 and 55 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) at Police Station Civil Lines, District Bathinda.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Shubham on 30.05.2025, alleging therein that on the same night at about 9:15 PM, he along with his brother Sagar was taking a walk in the area of Danga Peedit Colony, Kikar Wala Chowk when 9-10 youths riding on bikes came to them and stopped their vehicles. The accused Harpreet Singh was one amongst them. He was carrying a sword, whereas the remaining were not known to the complainant. All of them were also armed with weapons. The accused Harpreet Singh made an exhortation that the complainant should be taught a lesson and thereafter, struck a blow with sword with intent to kill him. The blow hit the wrist of his right arm. His accomplices also started assaulting him with their respective weapons. He had fallen down and was still assaulted by them. His brother Sagar being scared stood at a distance but raised clamour, on hearing which several persons reached at the spot and then the assailants fled away. The complainant was rushed to the hospital for treatment.

3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The statement of Sagar, brother of the complainant as well as eye- witness, was recorded on 04.06.2025 on the basis of which, the present petitioner and some other persons were nominated as accused. The petitioner was arrested on the same day. Investigation now stands concluded.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the FIR. His name was taken by the alleged eye-witness Sagar, five days after the occurrence after making due deliberations and concoctions. He has not been attributed any specific role. Neither he is alleged to have been armed with any weapon. He is in custody since long. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. His antecedents are clean. There is no apprehension of his absconding or intimidating the witnesses. Therefore, it is argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

5. Status report and custody certificate have been filed by respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be released on bail. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

7. The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object thereof, is alleged to have voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries to the complainant-Shubham. He was not named in the FIR and was nominated on the basis of statement recorded by the eye-witnes