Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/40293/2026 of MAKHAN CHAND Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 28 July 2026
(O & M) ::1:: (233) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-40293-2026 (O & M) Date of Decision: 28.07.2026 Makhan Chand ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Harvinder Singh Mann,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
::1::
(233) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-40293-2026 (O & M) Date of Decision: 28.07.2026 Makhan Chand ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Harvinder Singh Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adeshwar S. Pannu, AAG, Punjab. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 BNSS is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.33 dated 13.04.2025 under Sections 109, 115(2), 351(2), 191(3) and 190 of BNS (corresponding Sections 307, 323, 506, 148 and 149 of IPC) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and later on added Section 117(2) of BNS, 2023 (Section 326 IPC), registered at Police Station Bareta, District Mansa.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Taking the allegations to be
::2:: correct, he has been attributed a fist blow on the left eye of the complainant. He is also alleged to have fired with a pistol at the complainant but the shot did not hit the complainant. The injury attracting Section 326 IPC (Section 117(2) of BNS) has been attributed to one Sukhwinder Singh on the right arm of the complainant. As the petitioner is in custody since 04.09.2025 but none of the 24 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of regular bail, moreso, as it is a case of version and cross-version and the brother of the petitioner namely Harmesh Chand himself has received head injuries.
3. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave inasmuch as he fired upon the complainant and gave him an injury on the left eye. He, however, concedes that the shot fired by the petitioner did not hit anyone, that the injury attracting Section 326 IPC (Section 117(2) of BNS) has been attributed to co- accused namely Sukhwinder Singh, that it is a case of version and cross-version and that the petitioner is in custody since 04.09.2025 but none of the 24 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The veracity of the prosecution case against the petitioner and his co-accused shall be adjudicated upon during the course of the Trial. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody since 04.09.2025 but none of the 24
::3:: prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. Therefore, the Trial in the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. In this situation, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required.
6. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner-Makhan Chand is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
7. The petition stands disposed of. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE July 28, 2026 vishal Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable :- Yes/No