Amrik Singh vs State Of Punjab

CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.41806 of 2026 Date of Decision:- 13.08.2026 Amrik Singh …..Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL ***** Present:- Mr. Surjit Singh Swaich, Advocate and Ms. Navjot Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG, Punjab. Mr. J.S. Grewal, Advocate for the complainant.

Prayer in the present petition preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the ‘BNSS’) is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.132 dated 08.06.2026 under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(1), 353(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS’) (Section 109 of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 added later on), registered at Police Station Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

Custody certificate dated 11.08.2026 filed in Court today, is taken on record.

On the statement of one Gurpreet Singh, the FIR in question was registered, the translated version of which (as given in Annexure P-1) is as under:-“Statement of Gurpreet Singh S/o Sajjan Singh aged about 42 years, R/o village Amrala, PS Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib. M. No. 78885-05456. Stated that I resident of the aforesaid address and I am an agriculturist. We are two brothers. The name of my younger brother is Satpreet Singh and we both the brothers have total land measuring about 7 acres at village Amrala. The said land was given by us on lease to Harinder Singh resident of our village on leasehold basis for the last about 25-30 years, who was cultivating the said land. This year I and my brother planned to self-cultivate a portion of the said land and we told Harinder Singh that we will self-cultivable the land measuring about 5 acres. Harinder Singh left the said 5 acres land vacant and today on 08.06.2026 at about 04-00 PM, I came back home after ploughing the aforesaid land and it was about 05.30 PM, we heard a loud noise outside our house and I came out and saw that Amrik Singh S/o Naranjan Singh, Nachhattar Singh S/o Naranjan Singh, Harmanpreet Singh S/o Amrik Singh, residents of Amrala, were raising noise. Gurdeep Singh resident of Maheshpura was accompanying them. Then we came out of the house and saw that Harmanpreet Singh who was carrying a kirpan in his hand rushed towards me and gave a kirpan blow to me and when I raised my left arm to save myself, the kirpan hit on my left hand. Harmanpreet Singh gave second blow on my back. In the meantime Amrik Singh was shouting by saying that today they will not be spared. Then Nachhattar Singh, who was carrying gun like thing in his hand hurled abuses in high volume. I fell down on the ground and all of them gave beatings to me. I heard the sound of 5-6 gun shots. In the meantime my family rushed out to save me and the aforesaid persons ran away from the spot with their weapons issuing threats. Thereafter, my brother Sampreet Singh got me admitted in CH Hospital Khamanon, where I am under treatment. The requisite legal action be taken against them and justice be imparted to me. Statement has been got recorded, read over and admitted to be correct. The motive is that the aforesaid persons are asserting their right over the said land.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 15.06.2026; no injury has been attributed to him as the only attribution was of he having raised a Lalkara. He further submits that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, they being closely related to each other. Learned counsel further submits that antecedents of the petitioner are clean and no recovery has to be made from him. He submits that the matter is still under investigation and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application.

Learned counsel for the complainant concedes that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

The factum of a compromise having been arrived in a matter of this nature would not be relevant at this stage. However, keeping in view the fact that the role attributed to the petitioner is that of he having given a Lalkara only and he is in custody for the last 1 month 26 days or for almost 2 months, his antecedents also being clean and the matter being under investigation, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) August 13, 2026 JUDGE