2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 27811
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AMIT KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB – Respondent
##PAGE1##
CRM-M No.71939 of 2025 -1-
116 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.71939 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.04.2026
Amit Kumar ….. Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ….. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
*****
Present: Mr. P. K. S. Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K. D. Sachdeva, DAG, Punjab.
*****
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.015, dated 26.01.2025, under Sections 103, 109, 333, 331(7), 115, 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023 (Section 331(7) BNS enhanced and Section 333 BNS reduced), registered at Police
Station Sadar Bathinda, District Bathinda.
2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Kala Singh. It was alleged that on 24.01.2025, there was a shagun ceremony of the son of complainant in his house. The relatives of the complainant including his brother, namely, Kuldeep Singh and his wife, namely, Seema Kaur, who were living in Mansa, along with their friend, namely, Jatinder had came to attend the shagun ceremony of his son. It was alleged that at about 09:30
RITTU
2026.04.02 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
##PAGE2##CRM-M No.71939 of 2025 -2-
P.M., Ram Singh armed with Aari, Ravi armed with Iron Sabbal, Amit, i.e. the petitioner, armed with brick bat, Sunny armed with Kulhari, Rajwati and Nisha armed with brick bats entered the house of the complainant and attacked upon them. Amit, i.e. the petitioner gave a brick bat blow on the head of the complainant. When the relatives tried to stop them, Sunny gave a blow of Kulhari on the head of Jatinder, which hit on the right side of his head. Ravi also gave two blows of Sabbal on the left side of head of Jatinder and on account of the injuries, he fell down on the ground. Ram Singh gave a blow of Aari on the left arm of his sister-in-law, namely, Seema and Nisha also gave two blows of brick bats on the head of his brother, namely, Kuldeep Singh. On raising alarm, all the accused fled away from the spot along with their respective weapons. Thereafter, the injured were admitted to the hospital for treatment but due to the injuries suffered by Jatinder, he was referred to AIIMS Bathinda. On 25.01.2025, Jatinder was again referred from AIIMS to Sukhmani Specialist and Trauma Centre, Bathinda for treatment, however, he succumbed to the injuries. Thus, the request was made to take the legal action against the culprits. On the basis of the same, the FIR was registered. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. The petitioner was arrested on 26.01.2025. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda praying for the grant of bail. However, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda declined the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 04.07.2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court praying for the grant of regular bail by way
RITTU
2026.04.02 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
##PAGE3##CRM-M No.71939 of 2025 -3-
of filing the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the alleged occurrence has taken place on 24.01.2025. He has submitted that the petitioner as alleged by the complainant, namely, Kala Singh to have given a brick bat blow on his head. He has submitted that the fatal blow to the deceased, Jatinder has been alleged to the co-accused, namely, Sunny son of Ram Singh. He has submitted that the petitioner has been arrested on 26.01.2025. He has submitted that the petitioner was arrested on the basis of false and frivolous allegations. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution, on