IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 16^th February, 2026 Gurlal Singh @ Laddi ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Amarpreet S. Bathindewala, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Roshandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 175 dated 29.06.2025 registered under Sections 109, 331(6), 115(2), 324(4), 191(3) and 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) at Police Station Civil Lines Bathinda.

2. As per the allegations, on 28.06.2025, the petitioner formed membership of unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object thereof, they had opened an attack upon the complainant and his family members thereby causing injuries to them after making an exhortation. The allegations against the petitioner are that he had caused injuries with a daang on the person of Rani Devi, daughter-in-law of the complainant. Other members of the family of the complainant also had caused injuries at the hands of the petitioner and co-accused. The petitioner was arrested and in custody since 02.07.2025. Investigation now stands completed. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The injuries which have been attributed to him have been opined to be simple in nature. He is not required for further investigation. He has been in custody since long. There are no chances of conclusion of trial in near future. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. Co-accused Nagina Devi has been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He is a habitual offender being involved in several other cases. There are chances of his committing similar offences or absconding, if extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

6. The petitioner by forming membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused is alleged to have voluntarily caused injuries on the person of the complainant and his family members. The injuries which had been attributed to the petitioner opined to be simple in nature. The petitioner is not required to be detained in custody for the purpose of further investigation as the same stands concluded. Trial will obviously take time to conclude since no prosecution witness has been examined so far. It is well settled that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing and that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Keeping in view the above discussed facts but without meaning to make any comment on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the same is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.

7. Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.

[MANISHA BATRA]

JUDGE

16^th February, 2026 Parveen Sharma