H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

1. This petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS(439 Cr.P.C) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 103 dated 24.07.2022 under Sections 307, 324, 323, 109, 148, 149 of IPC (Sections 326,325 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station, Nathana, District Bathinda.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of Gulzar Singh, father of the injured, namely Balwinder Singh @ Budha. It is alleged that the petitioner, along with 16 other co-accused, inflicted injuries on the head and leg of the injured due to a grudge, as he had been helping one Tar Singh, who was allegedly beaten by the petitioner and others a few months earlier.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has has been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity with the petitioner. He further submits that the co-accused have already been granted concession of regular bail. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 27.04.2025 and learned counsel prays for grant of regular bail.

4. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner has committed a serious offence. He has filed the custody certificate as well status report in Court, which are taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 11 months and 12 days and is involved in three cases. He further submits that charges are yet to be framed.

6. I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record.

7. After hearing the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that other similarly placed co-accused have already been granted regular bail; and further considering that the petitioner is in custody for the last 11 months and 12 days, although he is involved in three cases, he has been granted bail in two of them, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, this Court is of the view that further detention of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose.

8. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pardeep Kumar @ Banu versus State of Punjab, bearing Criminal Appeal No.1341/2026 (arising out of SLP(Cri.) No.18775/2025, decided on 13.03.2026, wherein it has been categorically held that where the accused has remained in custody for a considerable period and the trial has not even commenced, or is not likely to conclude in the near future, therefore, continued incarceration would amount to punishment without trial. In such circumstances, further detention pending trial is not necessary and the accused is entitled to be released on bail.

9. 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/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

10. Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

11. It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.