Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dilpreet Singh @ Dilli vs State Of Punjab on 24 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M-19786-2026 1
213
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-19786-2026
Date of decision :24.04.2026
Dilpreet Singh @ Dilli ....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Raj Karan Singh, A.A.G., Punjab.
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for grant of regular bail in case bearing GD No.19 dated 09.02.2025 under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 191(3), 190 & 238 of BNS, registered at Police Station Rahon in FIR No.0011 dated 08.02.2025, under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 333, 3(5) of BNS, registered at Police Station Rahon, District SBS Nagar.
2. As per the facts of the case, it is a case of version and cross- version. The abovementioned FIR was lodged on the statement of complainant, namely, Rajandeep Singh wherein it was alleged that on 04.02.2025, Dilpreet Singh @ Dilli (petitioner herein) along with other co-accused caused injuries to the complainant party. It was alleged that after an initial quarrel regarding kicking of the pet dog, the accused persons, including the present petitioner, formed an unlawful assembly and attacked the complainant party. Thereafter, the accused persons forcibly entered the house of the complainant while armed with weapons and caused injuries to Rajandeep Singh, Dalbir Singh and Dilpreet Singh. It was further alleged that a cross version case was also registered on the POOJA SHARMA 2026.04.24 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19786-2026 2 statement of Jatinder Singh, wherein specific allegations were levelled against Dilpreet Singh @ Dilli that he inflicted a krich blow on the head of Jatinder Singh. Thus, cross version was registered in above said FIR vide GD No. 19 dated 09.02.2025 under Section 115(2), 118(1),118(2),191(3),190 BNS. On registration of the same, investigation commenced. The petitioner was arrested on 07.02.2026 in the present GD. On completion of investigation, challan was presented. On framing of charges, the trial commenced. The petitioner approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar, praying for grant of bail, however, finding no merit, the same was declined after hearing both the sides by Learned trial Court vide order dated 16.03.2026. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court praying for grant of bail by way of filing of present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that admittedly it is a case of version and cross-version. He submits that from the petitioner's side there are 03 injured. He submit that except the petitioner, rest all the co-accused are on bail. He submits that once it is a case of version and cross-version, it is the matter of trial that which party was the aggressor. To buttress his arguments, he contends that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents as he has never been involved in any other case. He, thus, submits that the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was alleged to have caused the head injury to complainant- POOJA SHARMA Jatinder Singh (in cross-version case), which was declared to be grievous 2026.04.24 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19786-2026 3 in nature. He, on instructions, has submitted that the case is under investigation. He has produced on record the custody certificate of the petitioner.
6. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the case in hand is of version and cross-version. There are injuries on both the sides and it is a matter of trial as which party was the aggressor. Except the petitioner, rest all the co-accused are on bail. As per custody certificate of the petitioner, he has suffered an incarceration of 02 months and 14 days as on 23.04.2026. It further shows that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.
7. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court.
8. This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, the Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for the grant of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, present petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
24.04.2026 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
ps-I JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
POOJA SHARMA
2026.04.24 18:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document