Pre-trial incarceration should not serve as a substitute for post-conviction sentencing, particularly when the investigation is complete and the trial is expected to take significant time.

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking benefit of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.172, dated 22.09.2025, under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 191(3), 190 of the BNS (offence under Section 117(2) of the BNS was added lateron vide DDR No.16 dated 09.10.2025) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Shri Hargobindpur, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by complainant – Makhanpreet Singh alleging that on 21.09.2025, he had gone to watch a kabaddi match and to attend some religious function. Thereafter, while he along with Boor Singh, Jimmy and Balwinder Singh @ Surli was going back towards his house on his tractor and was on the way, accused Tarsem Singh and Pawan Kumar were found present along with 6-7 persons unknown to him. They were armed with weapons. All of them encircled him. Accused Pawan Kumar made an exhortation to teach a lesson to the complainant for getting registered a case against Baldev Singh and his family members. Thereafter, accused Buta Singh and Samu fired shots with pistols upon him with an intent to kill him but he had a narrow escape. The petitioner struck blow with a kirch, thereby injuring the palm of his right hand. He was again assaulted by accused Buta Singh and Tarsem Singh. On clamour being raised, his friend Gurwinder Singh @ Navi had rushed to the spot but he too sustained a firearm injury at the hands of Baldev Singh. The assailants then fled away.

3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 09.10.2025. Investigation now stands concluded.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since long. The injury that has been attributed to him on the person of the victim, has been opined to be simple in nature and is on non-vital part of the body There is delay of more than 24 hours in reporting the matter to the police. It is case of version and cross-version since the members of his party, namely, Buta Singh and Baldev Singh had also sustained serious injuries in the same incident and it was the complainant, who was the aggressor, having initiated the attack upon him. He is not required for further investigation. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. He has clean antecedents. His further detention would not serve any useful purpose. Even otherwise, a compromise has been effected between the complainant and himself. With these broad submissions, it is argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail.

6. Memo of appearance on behalf of the complainant has been filed and learned counsel has affirmed the factum that a compromise (Annexure P-2) has been arrived at between the parties and the same has been signed by the complainant. He has not raised any objection to the pleas as taken by learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

8. The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object thereof, is further alleged to have ass