[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sachin Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 24 March, 2026
CRM-M-66151-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-66151-2025
Sachin Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
Sr. No. Particulars Details
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 20.03.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 24.03.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 24.03.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full
4 Full
judgment is pronounced
The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not
5
reasons thereof applicable
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Ms. Navdeep Kaur Brar, Advocate with
Mr. Ramandeep Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J :-
The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the
petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 130 dated
30.05.2025 registered under Sections 109, 118(1),115(2), 190, 191(3), 118(2),
117(2), 238 and 55 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') at
1 of 4
Police Station Civil Lines, District Bathinda.
2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement
recorded by the complainant Shubham on 30.05.2025, alleging therein that on
the same night at about 9:15 PM, he along with his brother Sagar was taking
a walk in the area of Danga Peedit Colony, Kikar Wala Chowk when 9-10
youths riding on bikes came to them and stopped their vehicles. The accused
Harpreet Singh was one amongst them. He was carrying a sword, whereas the
remaining were not known to the complainant. All of them were also armed
with weapons. The accused Harpreet Singh made an exhortation that the
complainant should be taught a lesson and thereafter, struck a blow with sword
with intent to kill him. The blow hit the wrist of his right arm. His accomplices
also started assaulting him with their respective weapons. He had fallen down
and was still assaulted by them. His brother Sagar being scared stood at a
distance but raised clamour, on hearing which several persons reached at the
spot and then the assailants fled away. The complainant was rushed to the
hospital for treatment.
3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were
initiated. The statement of Sagar, brother of the complainant as well as eye-
witness, was recorded on 04.06.2025 on the basis of which, the present
petitioner and some other persons were nominated as accused. The petitioner
was arrested on the same day. Investigation now stands concluded.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been
falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the FIR. His name was
2 of 4
taken by the alleged eye-witness Sagar, five days after the occurrence after
making due deliberations and concoctions. He has not been attributed any
specific role. Neither he is alleged to have been armed with any weapon. He
is in custody since long. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. His
antecedents are clean. There is no apprehension of his absconding or
intimidating the witnesses. Therefore, it is argued that the petition deserves to
be allowed.
5. Status report and custody certificate have been filed by
respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the
gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve
to be released on bail. There are chances of his absconding or committing
similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is stressed that the
petition does not deserve to be allowed.
6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at
considerable length.
7. The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an
unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object
thereof, is alleged to have voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous
injuries to the complainant-Shubham. He was not named in the FIR and was
nominated on the basis of statement recorded by the eye-witness-Sagar five
days after the incident. However, no specific role, injury and weapon has been
attributed to him. He is in custody for a period of more than nine months. The
trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, since no prosecution
3 of 4
witness has been examined so far. The continued detention of the petitioner
would not serve any fruitful purpose. It is also well settled that pre-trial
incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing and bail is
the rule and jail is an exception. The object of jail is to secure appearance of
the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. Taking into
consideration the above discussed facts, the clean antecedents of the petitioner
and the period spent by him in custody, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is allowed and
the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing
personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.
8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case
and shall not influence the outcome of the trial.
9. Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending
application, if any, is rendered infructuous.
[MANISHA BATRA]
JUDGE
24th March, 2026
Parveen Sharma
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No
2. Whether reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
