IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-08.05.2025 Hardeep Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present:- Mr. M.S. Khaira, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gaurav Gurcharan Singh Rai, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. Siddharth Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI J.(Oral)

CRM-18096-2025 Present application has been filed for placing on record certain documents.

Application is allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. The accompanying document i.e. testimony of PW-1 is taken on record as Annexure A-1.

Main case

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.132 dated 08.09.2023 under Sections 354, 354-A, 354-D of IPC (Sections 323 and

341 added later on), registered at Police Sadar Dhuri, District Sangrur.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for 4 months and 27 days. He submitted that the investigation in the present case has been completed and even the complainant-victim has already been examined. He submitted that, even as per the FIR the allegations against the petitioner were with regard to stopping the complainant while she was returning home and the petitioner who was on a motorcycle allegedly held her hand and thereafter used filthy language towards her. He further submitted that it is a case where the petitioner and the complainant were in a good relationship, they had each other’s mobile phone numbers and had been exchanging WhatsApp messages for a long time. It is not a case where the petitioner had suddenly stopped the complainant and held her hand. He submitted that when the relationship between them turned sour, the aforesaid FIR was lodged with false allegations. He also submitted that, in any case, the complainant, who is the material witness, has already been examined and the petitioner has faced incarceration for about 4 months and 27 days. Therefore, the petitioner may be considered for the grant of regular bail. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that, insofar as the custody of the petitioner is concerned, it is correct and it is also correct that investigation in the present case has been completed, however, he is not aware as to whether the complainant has been examined or not.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submitted that the petitioner had been harassing the complainant and on many occasions, even extended threats to her through WhatsApp messages. He submitted that, in case the petitioner is released on bail, he may either abscond or threaten the complainant. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of regular bail.

5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. The custody of the petitioner is stated to be 4 months and 27 days and as per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the complainant stands examined. An application has also been filed in the present petition wherein the statement of the complainant as PW-1 has been attached along with the aforesaid application and therefore, it is clear that the complainant stands examined, although she has supported the prosecution version. Both the learned counsels for the petitioner and the complainant have stated that the petitioner and the complainant had each other’s mobile numbers and had been exchanging WhatsApp messages. The allegations in the FIR against the petitioner were pertaining to stopping the complainant on the way, holding her hand and using filthy language.

7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that, considering the fact that the investigation in the present case has been completed, the complainant already stands examined and keeping in view the alleged role attributed to the petitioner, the petitioner deserves the concession of reg