Heera Singh vs State Of Punjab

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.6, dated 05.01.2026, registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 118(2), 126(2), 190, 191(3), 351(1) and 351(3) of the BNS and Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur.

As per the allegations, on 24.12.2025, the complainant/Daler Singh along with one Harpal Singh was going on his tractor trolly and when he reached near the house of Dilbag Singh, the abovesaid Dilbag Singh, accompanied by the present petitioner and the co-accused intercepted him and stopped his tractor. Accused Sajjan Singh raised lalkara and Dilbag Singh dragged him out of his tractor and opened an assault upon him by striking a blow with a datar on his head with an intent to kill him. He had fallen on the ground and then the present petitioner and co-accused also assaulted him with their respective weapons. Accused Dilbag Singh fired 3-4 shots in the air with his revolver. The complainant was rescued by his companion Harpal Singh and some other persons, who had reached there and was taken to hospital.

After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 08.05.2026. Investigation now stands concluded.

It is argued by a learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is delay of 12 days in lodging of the FIR, which has not been explained. The injury allegedly attributed to him has not been opined to be grievous in nature. He has suffered sufficient incarceration. Co-accused Dilbag Singh and Ravinder Singh have been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit. No useful purpose would be served by his continued detention. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be extended the benefit of bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the nature of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of the bail.

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner by forming membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused, is alleged to have opened an assault upon the complainant and to have caused simple as well as grievous injuries to him. The injury that has been attributed to the petitioner has been opined to be grievous in nature. However, it was on a non-vital part body of the body. The petitioner is shown to be involved in some other cases. However, on that account alone, he cannot be denied benefit of bail. The injuries sustained by the victim have not been opined to be dangerous to life and only one injury was declared to be grievous in nature. The trial will obviously take considerable time to conclude. As such, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned.

It is clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner.

Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.