Allowed¶23

Sukhdev Singh Alias Happy Alias Appy v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Jul 2025CRM-M/16429/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

regular bail; bail pending trial; Section 483 BNSS 2023; BNS 2023 Sections 118(1) 115(2) 110 3(5); FIR No.0154 dated 22.12.2024; Police Station Smalsar; District Moga; Sukhdev Singh @ Happy @ Appy; Randhir Singh @ Dheera; bat blow; fracture left leg; challan presented charges not framed; 17 prosecution witnesses; Dalbir Singh PPS DSP Sub-Division Baghapura; Manjari Nehru Kaul; CRM-M-16429-2025; High Court Punjab and Haryana; bail cancellation clause; animosity complainant party; no prior criminal case IPC/BNS

What did the court decide?

Regular bail pending trial, on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned; State at liberty to seek cancellation in case of misuse of the concession. ¶23

Sukhdev Singh Alias Happy Alias Appy Vs State of… — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner, Sukhdev Singh @ Happy @ Appy, pending trial in case FIR No.0154 dated 22.12.2024 (PS Smalsar, District Moga), registered under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 110, 3(5) of BNS, 2023.

¶12

Court's answer

Considering the petitioner's custody since 01.03.2025, the attribution to him of an injury (bat blow) on the left leg of the injured causing a fracture, the likelihood that charges would be framed only on 03.07.2025, and the involvement of 17 prosecution witnesses, the Court found the trial would take considerable time and deemed it fit to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is to be admitted to bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶23

Key takeaways

Anything observed in the judgment shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.obiter¶23
In case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of the same.obiter¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.; decided 01.07.2025) grants regular bail, pending trial, to Sukhdev Singh @ Happy @ Appy (CRM-M-16429-2025) in case FIR No.0154 dated 22.12.2024, Police Station Smalsar, District Moga, registered under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 110, 3(5) of BNS, 2023 — per the FIR recital, Sections 115(2) and 110 were added lateron and Section 118(1) deleted. Petition moved under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023. Petitioner, arrested 01.03.2025 and in custody since, was alleged to have been armed with a bat and attributed an injury on the left leg of the injured leading to a fracture; the State did not dispute the custody period, the presentation of the challan, or the bat-blow attribution, while maintaining that the petitioner was specifically named and assigned a role in the FIR. With the challan presented but charges not yet framed (likely only on 03.07.2025) and as many as 17 prosecution witnesses stated to have been examined, the Court held the trial would take considerable time and extended the concession of bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, clarifying that its observations were not an expression of opinion on merits and that misuse would entitle the State to seek cancellation. Counsel had urged that the case was planted out of animosity between the complainant party and co-accused Randhir Singh @ Dheera (the petitioner's brother), that the petitioner had a clean prior record under the IPC/BNS, and that only a bat blow on a non-vital part (leg) was attributed to him.

¶1

210. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM-M-16429-2025 Date of decision: 01.07.2025

¶3

Sukhdev Si n gh @ Happy @ Appy

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Pu n jab

.... Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

¶9

Present: Mr. Lovish Arora, Advocate, f o r the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Amit Rana, Senior DAG, P unjab. -----

¶11

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)

¶12

Prayer in this petition filed un d er Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 , is for gran t of regular bail to the petitio n er, pending trial, in case FI R No.0154, d a ted 22.12.2024, under Sectio n s 118(1), 115(2), 110, 3(5) o f BNS, 2023 (Sections 115(2) and 110 of B NS added lateron and Sectio n 118(1) BN S deleted), registered at Police S t ation Smalsar, District Moga. 2. Learned counsel for the petiti o ner submits that even as per th e case of the prosecution, the petitioner has b een attributed only a bat blo w on the non- v ital part of the body of the inju r ed i.e. his leg, which resulted i n a fracture. I t has been submitted that afte r the petitioner was arrested o n 01.03.2025, investigation qua him is comp l ete as challan stands presented , however, c h arges have not yet been frame d . It has been further submitte d that a false a nd fabricated case has been pla n ted upon the petitioner on

¶13

SANJEEV KUMAR 2025.07.01 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

CRM-M-16429-2025 - 2 -

¶15

account of animosity between the complainant party and co-accused, Randhir Singh @ Dheera, who is the petitioner’s brother. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel that the petitioner has never been involved in any criminal case under the IPC/BNS. A prayer has, therefore, been made for extending the concession of bail to the petitioner as there is no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future more so when as many as 17 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution.

¶16

In compliance of order dated 23.05.2025, short reply by way of affidavit dated 22.06.2025 of Dalbir Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Baghapura, District Moga, has already been filed in the Registry of this Court, which is taken on record. Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite, has not disputed the custody period of the petitioner nor has the State counsel, on instructions, disputed that the challan stands presented against the petitioner. It has also not been disputed, on instructions, that the petitioner has been attributed a bat blow on the leg of injured. However, learned State counsel, while drawing the attention of this Court to the allegations levelled in the FIR annexed as Annexure P-1, has reiterated the allegations levelled therein, and submitted that the petitioner has been specifically named and attributed the role in the occurrence in question.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

¶18

The petitioner has been in custody since 01.03.2025. The petitioner, who was alleged to be armed with a bat, has been attributed an

¶19

SANJEEV KUMAR 2025.07.01 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRM-M-16429-2025 - 3 -

¶21

injury on the left leg of the injured which led to a fracture. The trial would take considerable time to conclude as charges are likely to be framed only on the next date of hearing i.e. 03.07.2025, coupled with the fact that as many as 17 prosecution witnesses have been examined.

¶22

In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, this Court deems it fit to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner.

¶23

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner be admitted to bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶24

Needless to add, in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail granted to him, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of the same.

¶25

(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE July 01, 2025 sanjeev Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶26

SANJEEV KUMAR 2025.07.01 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Case FIR No.0154 dated 22.12.2024 registered under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 110, 3(5) of BNS, 2023, with trial pending therein.¶12
Prior proceeding
As per the FIR recital, Sections 115(2) and 110 of BNS, 2023 were added lateron and Section 118(1) BNS deleted.¶12
Prior proceeding
FIR registered at Police Station Smalsar, District Moga.¶12
Prior proceeding
Petitioner arrested on 01.03.2025; investigation qua him complete, challan stands presented, but charges not yet framed.¶12
Prior proceeding
Short reply by way of affidavit dated 22.06.2025 of Dalbir Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Baghapura, District Moga, filed in compliance of order dated 23.05.2025 and taken on record.¶16
Prior proceeding
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even as per the prosecution case, the petitioner was attributed only a bat blow on the non-vital part (leg) of the injured, which resulted in a fracture.¶12
Prior proceeding
Counsel submitted that a false and fabricated case was planted on account of animosity between the complainant party and co-accused Randhir Singh @ Dheera, the petitioner's brother.¶15
Prior proceeding
Counsel stated that the petitioner has never been involved in any criminal case under the IPC/BNS.¶15
Prior proceeding
Counsel prayed for bail on the ground that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future, with 17 witnesses cited by the prosecution.¶15
Prior proceeding
State counsel did not dispute the petitioner's custody period nor, on instructions, that the challan stands presented against the petitioner.¶16
Prior proceeding
State counsel, on instructions, did not dispute that the petitioner has been attributed a bat blow on the leg of the injured.¶16
Prior proceeding
State counsel reiterated the allegations in the FIR (Annexure P-1), submitting that the petitioner was specifically named and attributed a role in the occurrence.¶16
Prior proceeding
Petitioner in custody since 01.03.2025; alleged to have been armed with a bat.¶18
Prior proceeding
Alleged injury attributed to the petitioner: on the left leg of the injured, which led to a fracture.¶21
Prior proceeding
Trial expected to take considerable time: charges likely to be framed only on the next date of hearing, 03.07.2025.¶21
Prior proceeding
As many as 17 prosecution witnesses stated (by the Court) to have been examined.¶21

Sukhdev Singh Alias Happy Alias Appy v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhdev Singh Alias Happy Alias Appy v. State of Punjab

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

Komal and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Priya Goyal and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Others

Satnam Singh Vs State of Punjab

Manpreet Singh Alias Mani Vs State of Punjab

Ashwani Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Ranbir Singh Vs State of Punjab