Allowed¶31

Yakoob Alias Saifu v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC23 May 2025CRM-M/16076/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: CRM-M 16076 of 2025; Yakoob @ Saifu; Manisha Batra; Section 483 BNSS; regular bail; FIR 94/25.04.2024 PS Dasuya Hoshiarpur; IPC 326, 323, 506, 307, 34, 201, 148, 149; khanjar assault on Neefu; injury dangerous to life; custody since 16.07.2024; trial commenced; compromise Annexure P-2; bail allowed with surety bonds to trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted; petitioner ordered to be admitted to bail subject to furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned. ¶31

Yakoob Alias Saifu Vs State of Punjab and Another — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM-M No.16076 of 2025 Date of Decision: 23.05.2025 Reserved on: 20.05.2025

Yakoob @ Saifu

... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another ... Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

¶8

Present: Mr. Virendra Pratap Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶9

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State.

¶10

¶11

MANISHA BATRA, J.

¶12

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”) seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:-

¶13

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sect	ions
94	25.04.2024	Dasuya, Distri	ct 326,	323,	506, 148, 149
		Hoshiarpur	and	34 o	f IPC (307 of
			IPC	added	later on)

¶14

Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Neefu alleging therein that on 19.04.2024, there was a marriage in his relations at Village Kaluwal. He along with his relatives had gone to attend the same. During mehndi

¶15

MANJU 2025.05.23 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh

¶16

-2-

¶17

CRM-M No.16076 of 2025

¶18

ceremony, the petitioner along with the co-accused Ranjha and Surmu who were present there, had started hurling abuses and they were stopped by the relatives of the complainant and then had left the spot. After sometime, the petitioner and co-accused came back. The accused Tajdin made an exhortation to catch the son of Sher Ali and that he should not be spared. Upon this, the co-accused Ranjha and Surmu caught hold of the victim Neefu and the petitioner opened an assault upon him by striking an injury in his abdomen by giving a khanjar blow with intent to kill him. Mukhtiar Ali who also rushed for rescue of Neefu had sustained injury at the hand of the petitioner, on his left shoulder. On hearing clamour, the other persons had started gathering at the spot and then the assailants fled.

¶19

After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 16.07.2024. Offences under Sections 34 and 201 of IPC were added whereas offences under Sections 148 and 149 of IPC were deleted. The investigation now stands completed and challan has been presented against the petitioner.

¶20

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated by the complainant on the instigation of other perosns. As many as 250 persons were present at the place of occurrence. A sudden altercation had taken place between the relatives on account of some misunderstanding. The petitioner had been wrongly named therein. There was no motive for him to assault the victim who is his relative. A compromise has even otherwise been arrived at between the parties. The

¶21

MANJU 2025.05.23 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh

¶22

-3-

¶23

CRM-M No.16076 of 2025

¶24

petitioner is in custody since long. Trial is likely to take time. His further incarcertation would not serve any useful purpose. He has clean antecedents. With these broad submissions, it is urged that he deserves to be released on bail.

¶25

Status report has been filed. It is argued by learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations, the petitioner does not deserve to be extended benefit of regular bail.

¶26

This Court has considered the rival submissions.

¶27

The petitioner along with the co-acused is alleged to have opened an assault upon the complainant Neefu. The petitioner is further alleged to have inflicted a blow with khanjar in the abdomen of the victim. The injury so sustained by the victim-complainant was declared to be dangerous to life. The petitioner is in custody since 16.07.2024. Trial is likely to take time to conclude as it has just commenced. Learned counsel for the complainant has affirmed the fact that a compromise Annexure P-2 has been executed between the parties. Though no authenticity whatsoever can be attached to this document at this stage as the same is to be assessed by the learned trial Court at the appropriate stage of the trial on the basis of the material produced before it, however, keeping in view the period of incarceation of the petitioner, the fact that trial would take time, his antecedents and the attendant facts and circumstances but without meaning to make any comment on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.

¶28

MANJU 2025.05.23 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh

¶29

CRM-M No.16076 of 2025

¶30

-4-

¶31

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶32

(MANISHA BATRA) 23.05.2025 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶33

MANJU 2025.05.23 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh

Yakoob Alias Saifu v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yakoob Alias Saifu v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Mukesh Pal Vs State of Haryana

Simranjeet Singh @ Simra Vs State of Punjab

Harjeet Singh Alias Harjit Sngh Alias Jeeta Vs State of Punjab

Kaluram Patidar Vs State of Haryana

Tara Ram Vs State of Punjab