CRM-M/35933/2026 of SUKHWINDER SINGH JOSSAN @ SUKHWINDER SINGH @ SHINDER Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER on 10 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.308 dated 28.09.2021 registered under Sections 307, 323, 34 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station City Ferozepur, District Ferozepur.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, who was armed with a pistol, abused the complainant and fired a shot at him, which hit his right thigh. It was further alleged that co-accused Rahul Bajaj assaulted the complainant with a sharp-edged weapon (kappa), causing injury on the left side

Chandigarh of his head, whereas another unidentified person also assaulted him after he had fallen on the ground.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and neither any specific injury nor any 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 has already been filed before this Court. Learned counsel has referred to a copy of the compromise at Annexure P-2. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 04 months and 27 days and is not involved in any other case. He, therefore, prays for release of the petitioner on regular bail as none of the prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.

4. Notice of motion.

5. On the asking of the Court, Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, DAG, 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 04 months and 27 days. He, upon instructions, submits that none of the prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.

6. Ms. Kesar Arora, Advocate for Ms. Paridhi Aggarwal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 and filed the Power of Attorney in Court, which is taken on record. She affirms the factum of the

Chandigarh compromise and submits that she 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 04 months and 27 days, he is not involved in any other case, the matter is stated to have been compromised between the parties and that the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude as none of the 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 10, 2026

JUDGE Sonia

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable

: Yes/No

Chandigarh