IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 07.04.2026 SHEKHAR AAJAD ... PETITIONER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB .. RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Pardeep Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Surinderjit Singh Nahar, AAG, Punjab.

***

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 (corresponding Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 25 dated 25.03.2025 under Sections 110, 126(2), 115(2), 191(3), 190, 324(4), 351(2), 61(2) of BNS, 2023 (Section 117(2) BNS added later on vide DDR No.31 dated 01.07.2025), registered at Police Station Bareta, District Mansa.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with his co-accused have inflicted 19 injuries on the person of the complainant and threatened the complainant in the name of Kulwant Singh @ Kala and Paramjit Singh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and there is an unexplained delay of five days in the registration of the FIR. It is submitted that the petitioner has been nominated on the basis of a supplementary statement recorded on 17.05.2025 and no specific injury has been attributed to him. He also submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 10 months and 14 days and Co-accused Kuldeep Singh has already been granted bail by this Court in CRM-M-45603-2025 on 18.03.2026. He, therefore, prays for release of the petitioner on regular bail as the trial is likely to take a long time as none of the prosecution witness has been examined so far.

4. Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He has filed the custody certificate in Court, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 10 months and 14 days. He, upon instructions, submits that although challan has been presented but none of the prosecution witness has been examined so far.

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

6. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 10 months and 14 days, co-accused has already been granted bail and that the trial is likely to take a long time as none of the prosecution witness has been examined so far, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial as the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice.

7. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

8. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail.

(H.S.GREWAL)

April 07, 2026 JUDGE Sonia