Allowed¶7

Gurlal Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Aug 2025CRM-M/6309/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; CRM-M-6309-2025; decided 05.08.2025; Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.; regular bail under Section 483 BNSS; FIR No.89 dated 11.07.2024, PS Khalra, Tarn Taran; offences under Sections 109, 190, 324(6) BNS and Sections 25, 27 Arms Act; compromise between parties; complainant no objection; State plea of habitual offender rejected as bar; custody since 05.10.2024; 18 prosecution witnesses not examined; trial delay; bail allowed without commenting on merits; petitioner Gurlal Singh son of Sukhchain Singh.

What did the court decide?

Release on regular bail to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. ¶7

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

¶1

CRM-M-6309-2025

¶2

-1- (220) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-6309-2025 Date of Decision: 05.08.2025 GURLAL SINGH . .. PETITIONER VERSUS

¶4

STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Fateh Singh Bhullar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶6

Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

¶7

Mr. Sarabpreet Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the complainant.

¶8

¶9

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

¶10

The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 BNSS is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.89 dated 11.07.2024 registered under Sections 109, 190, 324(6) of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act at Police Station Khalra, District Tarn Taran (Annexure P-1). 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. As the petitioner is in custody since 05.10.2024 and none of the 18 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail.

¶11

On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant does not dispute the factum of a compromise having been arrived at between the parties and states that he has no objection, if the petitioner is granted the concession of bail.

¶12

KUSUM 2025.08.06 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh

¶13

CRM-M-6309-2025

¶14

-2-

¶15

The learned counsel for the State contends that the petitioner is a habitual offender with other cases registered against him. Therefore, he is not entitled the concession of bail. He, however, concedes that the petitioner is in custody since 05.10.2024 and none of the 18 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.

¶16

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

Though, the petitioner is an accused in other cases, in the instant case, the parties have effected a compromise and the counsel for the complainant has categorically stated that he has no objection, if the petitioner is granted the concession of bail. As the petitioner is in custody since 05.10.2024 and none of the 18 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, therefore, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. In this situation, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required.

¶18

Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner, namely, Gurlal Singh son of Sukhchain Singh is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶19

The petition stands disposed of.

¶20

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE

¶21

05.08.2025

¶22

kusum Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:Yes/No

¶23

KUSUM 2025.08.06 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh

Gurlal Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurlal Singh 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

Rajiv Vs the State of Ut Chandigarh and Others

Jagtar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ajay Kumar Mittal Vs State of Haryana and Another

Parveen Kumar Alias Parveen Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Others

Prabhjot Singh Vs Kuldeep Kaur

Sumit Mittal Vs Rajender