IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (222)

1. CRM-M-46695-2025 Date of Decision: 02.12.2025 Jobanpreet Singh --Petitioner Versus State of Punjab --Respondent

2. CRM-M-54783-2025 Baljit Singh --Petitioner Versus State of Punjab --Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL.

Present:- Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Utkrant Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-54783-2025.

Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-46695-2025.

Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, DAG, Punjab.

***

H.S. GREWAL.J (Oral)

1. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned two petitions filed by the petitioners seeking regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 in case FIR No.77 dated 22.05.2024, under Sections 452, 324, 34 IPC

at Police Station Dinanagar, District Gurdaspur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the case of the

prosecution is that complainant Surender Kumar was given dagger blow on

left side of his chest by petitioner Jobanpreet Singh and Satnam Singh gave

dagger blow on his right eye and petitioner Baljit Singh gave dagger blow on his head. The injury attributed to Satnam Singh attracted offence under Section 307 IPC being dangerous to life, however, present petitioners have not been attributed any grievous injuries and the same would constitute offence under Section 324 IPC only, if, their individual act is considered. It is further submitted that petitioners have undergone custody period of 1 year and 17 days as on 01.12.2025. Learned counsel for petitioners, therefore, pray for release of the petitioners on regular bail as the trial is likely to take a long time.

3. Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioners. He has filed the status reports as well as custody certificates in respect of both the petitioners in Court, which are taken on record. As per the custody certificates, the petitioners are in custody for 01 year and 17 days as on 01.12.2025. He, upon instructions, submits that charges have been framed on 27.02.2025, however, no witness has been examined till date.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. In view of the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel(s) for the parties and keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are in custody for the last 01 year and 17 days. Charges have been framed on 27.02.2025, however, no witness has been examined till date. The trial is likely to take a long time, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioners during the pendency of the trial as his continuous detention would not serve the ends of justice.

6. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, both the petitions are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

7. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioners misuse the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of their bail.

02.12.2025 (H.S. GREWAL)

lucky JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No