CRM-M/19737/2026 of JEETPAL SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 15 July 2026

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.) seeking regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 70 dated 16.08.2025 under Sections 109, 115(2), 3(5), 118(1) BNS, 2023 (corresponding Sections 307, 326, 323, 34 IPC), Section 118(2) BNS, 2023 (corresponding Section 238 IPC) added later on, registered at Police Station Bhaini Mian Khan, District Gurdaspur.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner- Jeet Pal Singh and his co-accused-Gurwinder Singh were armed with dattar and inflicted injuries upon the complainant when he had gone to his field. They came there and raised a lalkara to teach the complainant a lesson for raising a dispute with them on 30.07.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner-Jeet Pal Singh gave a dattar blow on the head of the complainant with an intention to kill him, which hit the left side of his face, due to which his left ear was chopped off. The complainant also received injuries on his head as well as on his left cheek and fell down on the ground.

Chandigarh

Thereafter, Jeet Pal Singh gave three more dattar blows causing injuries on his left hand, left forearm and left elbow. Co-accused Gurwinder Singh also gave dattar blows towards the complainant and he raised his right hand to save himself from the said blows, due to which he suffered injuries on the little finger of his right hand. Thereafter, he again gave dattar blows with its reverse side on the abdomen of the complainant.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and no motive has been attributed to him. He further submits that with the intervention of the respectable of the Society, the matter has been compromised between the parties and a petition for quashing of the FIR bearing CRM-M-36622-2026 has already been filed before this Court. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 10 months and 16 days and is not involved in any other case. It is also submitted that co-accused Gurwinder Singh has already been granted by this Court in CRM-M-73074-2025 on 11.03.2026 (Annexure P-4). He, therefore, prays for release of the petitioner on regular bail as none out of 32 cited prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.

4. Notice of motion.

5. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner 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 16 days. He, upon instructions, submits that none out of 32 cited prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.

Chandigarh

6. Learned counsel for the complainant affirms the factum of the compromise between the parties and submits that he has no objection if the petitioner is granted bail.

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

8. 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 16 days, he is not involved in any other case, the matter is stated to have been compromised between the parties, co-accused has already been granted bail and that the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude as none out of 32 cited prosecution witnesses 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.

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 bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

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

(H.S.GREWAL) July 15, 2026

JUDGE Sonia

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable

: Yes/No

Chandigarh