Gurdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.) seeking regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.14 dated 06.02.2025, registered under Sections 115(2), 324(5), 326(G), 329(4) of BNS, 2023, at Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala.

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, Parmod Kumar, was working as an employee at a liquor vend situated in Village Sudhewal. On 06.02.2025 at about 7:30 a.m., while he was present at the liquor vend, the petitioner-Gurdeep Singh, came there and started arguing with the owner of the liquor vend. It is alleged that the petitioner threatened to set the liquor vend on fire, removed the gas pipe from the stove connected to the LPG cylinder, turned on the gas supply, inserted the pipe inside the shop through the grill and ignited the fire by throwing a burning piece of cardboard. When the complainant and another employee, Mahendra, attempted to stop him, the

¶17

SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.16 09.11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

CRM-M-6999-2026 -2-

¶19

petitioner allegedly assaulted them with fist blows. As a result of the fire, liquor bottles started bursting and, despite efforts to extinguish the flames, the liquor stock, cash and other articles lying inside the shop were completely burnt and turned into ashes. It is alleged that the petitioner was aggrieved by the functioning of the liquor vend as the same was situated in the vicinity of a temple.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case due to personal vendetta. It is submitted that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner and the allegations in the FIR are vague in nature. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence and has been falsely roped in as he had been opposing the operation of the liquor vend situated near a temple and along with other villagers, had made several representations to the authorities seeking its closure. It is also submitted that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 01 year, 05 months and 06 days and is not involved in any other case. He, therefore, prays for release of the petitioner on regular bail as the trial is likely to take a long time because none out of 14 cited prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.

¶21

Notice of motion.

¶22

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 01 year,

¶23

SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.16 09.11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶24

CRM-M-6999-2026 -3-

¶25

05 months and 06 days. He, upon instructions, submits that none out of 14 cited prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.

¶26

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

¶27

In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 01 year, 05 months and 06 days, he is not involved in any other case and that the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude as none out of 14 cited prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial as the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice.

¶28

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

¶29

However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State/complainant would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail.

¶30

(H.S.GREWAL) July 15, 2026 JUDGE Sonia Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶31

SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.16 09.11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurdeep 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

Gurjit Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Ravi Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Pardeep Vs State of Haryana

Mohinder Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Sahun and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Rajpal Vs the Rewari Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd.