IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 13^th February, 2025 Amrit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Jagat Vir Dhindsa, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-

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. 14 dated 03.02.2024 registered under Sections 307, 324, 323 and 379 read with Section 34 of IPC at Police Station Goraya, District Jalandhar Rural.

2. The present petitioner along the co-accused has been booked for and challaned for commission of aforementioned offences, on the allegations that on 01.02.2024, he along with the co-accused had opened an assault upon the complainant Karanjit Singh @ Karni and his friend Gaganjeet Singh @ Gaggi and had caused injuries to them. One of the injury sustained by the victim Gaganjeet Singh had been opined to be dangerous to life, whereas the remaining injuries sustained by him as well as by the complainant were opined to be simple injuries. The present petitioner allegedly had a scuffle with the victim Gagandeep Singh initially and then he had hit the victim Gagandeep Singh with a datar, whereas the co-accused had caused injuries with a kirch on the person of the complainant as well as victim Gaganjeet Singh. The petitioner was arrested on 06.03.2024.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since long. Investigation stands completed. Challan stands presented. Trial is likely to take time. His further detention would not serve any useful purpose. The injuries which have been attributed to him have been declared to be simple in nature. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, who has advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter, has submitted that the petitioner along with the co-accused has caused several injuries to the victim, one of the which has been declared to be dangerous. The petitioner has criminal antecedents as he is involved in two criminal cases, registered under Section 379-B of IPC. There are chances of his committing similar offences or absconding, if extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully.

6. The petitioner is in custody since 06.03.2024. Trial is likely to take time. His involvement in two more cases cannot be considered to be a ground for denying benefit of bail to him. Keeping in view the period of incarceration of the petitioner, the nature of attribution made to him and the above discussed facts but without meaning to make any comment on the merits of the case lest they prejudice the trial, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/

Duty Magistrate concerned.

7. Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.

[MANISHA BATRA]

JUDGE

13^th February, 2025

Parveen Sharma