Allowed¶35

Sahilpreet Singh Alias Sahil v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Nov 2025CRM-M/23933/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-M-23933-2025; Punjab & Haryana HC Chandigarh; decided 03.11.2025; Sanjay Vashisth, J.; regular bail under S.483 BNSS (earlier S.439 Cr.P.C.); FIR No. 79 dt. 15.07.2024, PS Majitha Rural, Amritsar; Ss.109, 115, 118(1), 191(3), 190 BNS; iron punch injury not dangerous to life, healed with four stitches; 20 prosecution witnesses, none examined; charges framed 28.01.2025; medical examination delay 13.07.2024 vs 16.07.2024; custody 1 year 2 months 17 days; no other case; bail allowed with surety; no threat/influence to witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail during pendency of trial; petitioner to be released subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/CJM/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, if not required in any other case, and not to threaten or influence prosecution witnesses. ¶35

Sahilpreet Singh Alias Sahil Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner, booked in FIR No. 79 dated 15.07.2024 (Police Station Majitha Rural, Amritsar) under Sections 109, 115, 118(1), 191(3), 190 of BNS, during the pendency of trial.

¶15

Court's answer

The injury attributed to the petitioner has not been declared as dangerous to life.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The alleged wound inflicted by the petitioner with an iron punch had healed after receiving total four stitches.

¶29

Key takeaways

Out of the total 20 prosecution witnesses cited, none has been examined till date.ratio¶29
Why the medical examination was conducted only on 16.07.2024 for an incident of 13.07.2024, and the injured leaving the hospital on his own, are matters left for consideration before the trial court.obiter¶33
In view of the totality of circumstances, nature of allegations and facts noticed, liberty of the petitioner cannot be curtailed for an indefinite period; the Court extends the concession of regular bail.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (Sanjay Vashisth, J.), CRM-M-23933-2025, decided 03.11.2025: Regular bail granted during pendency of trial to Sahilpreet Singh alias Sahil (aged about 19 years), accused in FIR No. 79 dated 15.07.2024, Police Station Majitha Rural, District Amritsar, under Sections 109, 115, 118(1), 191(3), 190 of BNS, on a petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.). Grounds: injury attributed to the petitioner (iron punch blow on the head of injured Jagjit Singh) not declared dangerous to life and healed after four stitches; none of the 20 prosecution witnesses examined despite challan presentation and framing of charges on 28.01.2025; injured had left the hospital on his own; gap between the 13.07.2024 occurrence and the 16.07.2024 medical examination left for the trial court's consideration; custody undergone 01 year 02 months 17 days with no other case registered. Bail subject to furnishing surety; petitioner not to threaten or influence witnesses; recorded discussion not to be treated as an expression of opinion on the facts.

¶1

CRM-M-23933-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

229

¶5

CRM-M-23933-2025 Decided on : 03.11.2025

¶6

SAHILPREET SINGH ALIAS SAHIL

......Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

¶12

Present: Ms. Ekjot Sandhu, Advocate, and Mr. Hagun Singh Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Vinay Malhotra, DAG, Punjab. ****

¶14

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

¶15

The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-

¶16

Name of	FIR	Date	Section(s)	Police	District
Petitioner(s)	No.			Station
Sahilpreet	79	15.07.2024	109, 115,	Majitha	Amritsar
Singh alias			118(1),		Rural,
Sahil, aged			191(3), 190		Amritsar
about 19years			of BNS

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that FIR in question was lodged by complainant Ravinder Singh @ Ravi, who stated that he is running a restaurant under the franchise name Hungary Point at Majitha. On 13.07.2024 at about 8:45 p.m., while the complainant along with his partner Jagjit Singh was working at the restaurant, (i) Sahilpreet Singh (petitioner herein), armed with an iron punch, (ii) Jobanjit Singh,

¶18

LAVISHA 2025.11.04 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

¶19

CRM-M-23933-2025 2

¶20

armed with a datar, (iii) Sunny Shergill, armed with a kirpan, and two unknown associates entered the restaurant. It is alleged that Sahilpreet Singh, who was earlier employed as a servant by the complainant, raised a lalkara and, with the help of his associates, dragged Jagjit Singh outside the restaurant. Thereafter, Jobanjit Singh is stated to have inflicted datar blows on the head and left wrist of Jagjit Singh, while Sahilpreet Singh allegedly gave a punch blow to Jagjit Singh on his head, and the remaining persons dragged him on the ground. Accused Sunny Shergill is further alleged to have caused kirpan blows to the complainant on both hands and on the head. On raising alarm, all the assailants fled from the spot.

¶21

Learned counsel argues that petitioner, Sahilpreet Singh, has been attributed only a single injury on the person of Jagjit Singh, that too on the left side of the head, allegedly caused with an iron punch. No medical opinion is available regarding the said injury, and therefore, same is to be treated as simple in nature. It is further submitted that the injured person had left the hospital on his own. The occurrence allegedly took place on 13.07.2024, whereas the medical examination was conducted only on 16.07.2024, thereby rendering the prosecution story doubtful as to whether the injuries were sustained in the same incident or subsequently. Even the FIR was registered after a delay of two days, on 15.07.2024. Though charges were framed on 28.01.2025, the applicability of Section 109 of the BNS remains highly doubtful. Moreover, the trial is proceeding at a very slow pace. It is also submitted that after completion of the investigation, challan has already been

¶22

LAVISHA 2025.11.04 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

¶23

CRM-M-23933-2025 3

¶24

presented; however, none of the prosecution witnesses, out of total 20, has been examined, so far.

¶25

On advance notice and in response to the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel, produces the custody certificate dated 01.11.2025 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner.

¶26

As per the custody certificate, in the present case, petitioner has already undergone 01 year 02 months and 17 days period inside jail and there is no other case registered against him.

¶27

On the other hand, learned State counsel, while opposing the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that injuries suffered by the victim were duly recorded during the medicolegal examination. It is further submitted that injury attributed to the petitioner was such that the injured required stitches administered by the doctors; therefore, the contention raised by petitioner’s counsel that the injury was simple in nature is incorrect. Thus, learned State counsel prays for dismissal of the present petition.

¶28

This Court has heard the submissions addressed by learned counsel for the parties and has also perused the record available on file.

¶29

It is evident that injury attributed to the petitioner has not been declared as dangerous to life. The alleged wound, said to have been inflicted by the petitioner with an iron punch, had healed after receiving total four stitches. Out of total 20 prosecution witnesses cited, none has been examined, till date. Another aspect worth noticeable is that the

¶30

LAVISHA 2025.11.04 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

¶31

CRM-M-23933-2025

¶32

¶33

injured himself had left the hospital on his own, and it would also be a matter for consideration before the trial court as to why the medical examination was conducted only on 16.07.2024, whereas the alleged incident took place on 13.07.2024.

¶34

In view of the totality of the circumstances, nature of the allegations, and the facts noticed hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that liberty of the petitioner cannot be curtailed for an indefinite period. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the present case.

¶35

Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed . Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

¶36

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

¶37

Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.

¶38

Petition stands disposed of.

¶39

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE

¶40

03.11.2025 Lavisha

¶41

Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/ NO Whether Reportable: YES/ NO

¶42

LAVISHA 2025.11.04 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

Sahilpreet Singh Alias Sahil v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahilpreet Singh Alias Sahil 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

Gurpreet Singh Alias Gopi Vs State of Punjab

Chetram Vs State of Haryana

Bikar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Vijay Pal Vs State of Punjab

Balbir Singh Vs Pardeep Singh

Dharminder Alias Tirath Ram Fouji and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others