IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on:22.08.2025 Baljit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj Present: Mr. Sarabjit Singh Cheema, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. R.S. Dadwal, Advocate, for the complainant.

****

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., now replaced with Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner during pendency of the trial in case FIR No.200 dated 21.12.2024, registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 126(2), 191(3), 190 of the BNS, 2023 (Sections 117(2) and 238 of the BNS, 2023 added later on), at Police Station Sadar Jagraon, District Ludhiana Rural.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the FIR in question was registered on the statement of complainant Gurwinder Singh, wherein it was alleged that on 20.12.2024, there was a Kabaddi tournament in their village and after watching the tournament, he along with his friends Sandeep Singh and Parminder Singh were returning their homes. However, they were waylaid by a Scorpio car, in which his co-villager Jagmohan Singh alias Mohna armed with baseball bat, Manvir Singh armed with sword, Arvinder Singh @ Gora armed with iron rod, Baljit Singh (petitioner herein) armed with Hockey and Gulwant Singh armed with a wooden stick were there in the car. They came out of the car and Baljit Singh exhorted others to teach them a lesson. On this, they started beating them with the weapons in their hands. Baljit Singh gave a Hockey blow on the head of Parminder. Thereafter, he gave another Hockey blow on the head of Sandeep. On raising alarm, all of them escaped from the scene of occurrence. The injured were shifted to the hospital. The request was made to take legal action against all the culprits. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced and during investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 26.03.2025. The petitioner approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, for grant of bail. However, after hearing both the sides, the learned Court declined the same vide order dated 10.07.2025. Hence, aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by of filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submitted that the present case is a case of version and cross version, wherein both the sides had suffered multiple injuries. It is submitted that the investigating agencies have conducted the investigation in a biased manner as the accused in the cross-version have not even been arrested. He further submitted that out of the five injuries suffered by the complainant side, the petitioner has not been attributed any injury and, thus, no offence under Section 109 of the BNS, 2023 is made out against the petitioner. It is submitted that since the investigation is complete, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on regular bail during the pendency of the trial.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant have opposed the bail application while submitting that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR, who was duly armed with a Hockey and gave blows thereof on the person of the injured and, thus, no case is made out of grant of bail and hence, the present petition deserves dismissal.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the available record, it is deciphered that the petitioner’s presence at the place of occurrence and his active role have duly been explained in the FIR by the complainant while stating that the petitioner was not only duly armed with a Hockey but he had given blows thereof on the persons of both the injured and the injuries attributed to the petitioner have been found to be grievous in nature. The argument