[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Arshpreet Singh Alias Arshdeep Singh ... vs State Of Punjab And Another on 1 December, 2025
CRM-M-66176-2025 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
229
CRM-M-66176-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 01.12.2025
Arshpreet Singh Alias Arshdeep Singh and Another
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and Another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Birinder Pal, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG Punjab
Mr. Amardeep Singh Mann, Advocate for respondent No.2
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for
grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.97 dated 07.07.2025,
registered under Sections 109 and 3(5) of BNS (corresponding to Sections 307
and 34 IPC) and Section 25 of Arms Act at Police Station CIty Patti, District
Tarn Taran.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioners have been in custody
for about 5 months. They allege false implication. As per the allegations,
petitioner No.1 is stated to have fired at the complainant while No.2 had raised
lalkara. There is nothing to show the incident to be pre-mediated. Moreover,
now the matter stands compromised between the parties on 23.09.2025,
Annexure P-5. Challan was presented on 04.10.2025, however, charges have not
been framed and in all there are 10 prosecution witnesses. Petitioner No.1 is
involved in 1 more case under Prisons Act, wherein he is on bail, while No.2 is
1 of 4
not involved in any other case. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by
Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State
of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382.
3. The custody certificates dated 30.11.2025, filed by the learned State
counsel are taken on record. As per the same, the petitioners are behind bars for 4
months and 20 days.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are
specific allegations against petitioner No.1 of having fired at the neck of the
complainant while No.2 having raised lalkara. However, he is unable to
controvert the submissions with regard to stage, compromise having been arrived
at and petitioner No.1 being on bail in another case while No.2 being not
involved in any other case.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 affirms the factum of
compromise and has no objection for grant of bail to the petitioners.
6. Heard.
7. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir
Rashadi (Supra)had held that, "As observed by the High Court, merely on the
basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be
rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the
accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such
as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc."
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular
that the petitioners are in custody for the last 4 months and 20 days; petitioner
No.1 on bail in another case while No.2 is not involved in any other case;
compromise stands effected; challan stands presented on 04.10.2025, however,
2 of 4
charges are yet to be framed and there are a total of 10 prosecution witnesses, the
trial is likely to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioners
would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, the present petition is allowed.
9. The petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to
furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate
concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following
conditions:-
(i) The petitioners will not tamper with the evidence
during the trial.
(ii) The petitioners will not pressurize/ intimidate the
prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioners will appear before the trial Court on
each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a
specific order of Court.
(iv) The petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to
the offence of which, they are accused, or for
commission of which they are suspected of.
(v) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly coerce,
induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her
from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.
(vi) The petitioners shall not in any manner misuse his
liberty.
(vii) The petitioners shall furnish their address and mobile
number by way of affidavit/s to the trial Court and not
change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any
reasons, they seek to change either of the aforesaid, it
shall be done only with prior information to the learned
trial Court.
(viii) The petitioners shall not leave the country without prior
permission of the trial Court.
(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other
condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the
petitioners.
10. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the
3 of 4
aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as
granted to the petitioners by this order.
11. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein
above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be
construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed
independently of the aforesaid observations.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
01.12.2025
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
