IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:23.03.2026 Manpreet Singh ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Prince Pal, Advocate for Mr. Imaan Singh Khara, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

...

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”) seeking benefit of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.150 dated 05.07.2025, registered under Sections 115(2), 118 and 3(5) of the BNS (Offence under Section 109 of the BNS was added lateron), at Police Station Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by complainant – Jagjeet Singh @ Gaggi, alleging that on the night of 28.06.2025, he along with one Satnam Singh @ Sattu was sitting in a dhaba where they were talking to each other, when the present petitioner armed with a gandasa accompanied by one Rammu Singh and two persons unknown to the complainant reached there. All of them were armed with weapons. They opened an assault upon the complainant. The petitioner struck blows with gandasa on the person of the complainant and Satnam Singh @ Sattu whereas others also caused injuries to them with their respective weapons. On clamour being raised, they fled from the spot. The cause of grudge was that some minor scuffle had taken place between them previously.

3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The medico legal reports of the victims were collected by the Investigating Agency as per which one injury sustained by victim Jagjeet Singh @ Gaggi was opined to be dangerous in nature. The petitioner and co- accused Rammu Singh were arrested on 21.07.2025. The weapon of offence was recovered from the petitioner. Co-accused were also arrested subsequently. Investigation now stands completed.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since long. He is not required for further investigation as the same stands concluded. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. Even the petitioner had also sustained injuries in the same incident and a cross case has been registered against the members of the complainant party. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. His antecedents are clean. It is, thus, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the status report has vehemently argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail.

6. This Court has considered the rival submissions.

7. The petitioner along with co-accused is alleged to have voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries to the victims. One of such injuries sustained by one of the injured was opined to be dangerous in nature. He himself has also sustained injuries in the same incident and as per the medical legal report, one of injuries so sustained, has been opined to be grievous in nature. The allegations prima facie make out a case for commission of the aforementioned offences as against the petitioner. However, he is in custody since 21.07.2025. He is not required for purpose of further investigation in the matter. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. As such, no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. It is well settled proposition of law that bail is the rule and jail is an exception and the pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post conviction sentencing. The object of jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial and it cannot be punitive or preventive. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner may abscond or commit similar offences.

8. In vi