Mohit Kumar vs State Of Punjab
2026 Latest Caselaw 2442 P&H

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2442 P&H
Judgement Date : 13 March, 2026

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mohit Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 13 March, 2026

CRM-M No.12491 of 2026                                                     -1-


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH
215
                                      *****

                                                    CRM-M No.12491 of 2026
                                                   Date of decision : 13.3.2026
                                                  Date of uploading : 13.3.2026

Mohit Kumar                                               .............Petitioner
                                        Versus
State of Punjab                                           .......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present: Mr. J.S. Lalli, Advocate, for the petitioner

           Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab

           ---

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of

regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.99 dated 5.10.2023 under

Sections 323, 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC (Section 34 of IPC

deleated and Sections 307 and 201 IPC added later on), registered at

Police Station Division No.5, Jalandhar.

2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present

petition by the petitioner) is as follows:-

'Statement of Gaurav Sahota alias Gora son of Sham Lal resident of house number WQ-30 Basti Seikh Adda near Sud Hospital Jalandhar aged about 26 years 97794-51778. It is stated that I am resident of the above address.

On 27/07/2023, me and my friend Ajay were both going to drop my uncle Maru at his house in Mochian Mohalla Basti Sheikh on our motorcycle. It was around 9:25 PM when we reached near the shop of Shinder Milkman

1 of 5

in Mochian Mohalla, then on turn, two young boys whose names were Chitta and Mohit were already standing. Our uncle Maru said to them to stand on a side of the passage, upon which got arguments started between these two and my uncle and also they scuffled and abused my uncle. Thereafter both these boys ran to their house and after a while they came back with the swords. Chitta hit me with his sword held in his hand which hit my head, he hit me again on my head and i raised my left arm to protect my head. The sword hit my arm. Mohit hit my friend Ajay with sword held in his hand which hit on Ajay's right shoulder. Hearing our screams, the residents of the locality gathered and seeing them gathering, both of them ran away from the spot. The reason behind this fight is that our uncle had asked them to stand on the side of the passage, and they beat us up for this. The talks of our compromise were going on which did not come fruitful. Statement has been got written and understood and its correct. Action be taken. SD/-Gaurav Sahota.'

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the FIR in

question was registered on 5.10.2023 for an occurrence of 27.7.2023.

Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner was initially

admitted to bail by the concerned Magisterial Court on 8.10.2024.

Subsequently, the offence under Section 307 IPC was added on 20.2.2025

and thereafter, the petitioner was arrested on 10.2.2026. Learned counsel

has further argued that once the petitioner was granted concession of

regular bail by the Magisterial Court concerned, the police could not have

arrested him even for additional/serious offence, without permission of

the concerned Court. Learned counsel has further submitted that there is

no allegation of misuse of concession of bail, earlier afforded to him.

Learned counsel has further submitted that offence under Section 307 of

IPC is not made out against the petitioner from the factual matrix of the

case. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is a young

2 of 5

man aged 24 years with no criminal antecedents. Learned counsel has

further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR

in question. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by

arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the

petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned

State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 12.3.2026

in Court, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the

available records of the case.

6. It is not in dispute that the occurrence took place on 27.7.2023

and the FIR in question came to be registered on 5.10.2023. The

petitioner was released on regular bail by the concerned Magisterial Court

on 8.10.2024 and subsequently Section 307 of IPC was added on

20.2.2025. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own

time. The rival contention of learned counsel for the parties; as to

whether offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out; shall be gone into

during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve

deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the

trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood

of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with

the prosecution evidence.

6.1 As per custody certificate dated 12.3.2026 filed by learned State

counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of

3 of 5

01 month and 2 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case.

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial

is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is

ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds

to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However,

in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned

CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following

conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.