Karan Sharma vs State Of Punjab

CRM-M-48775-2026 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(279)
CRM-M-48775-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 08.09.2026
Karan Sharma
… Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Arjun Veer Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab.
Mr. Nikhil Chopra, Advocate with
Ms. Trishanjali, Advocate
for the complainant-Manikjot Singh.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
1. The present is the first petition under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439
of the Code of Criminal Procedure), seeking the grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in connection with FIR No. 77 dated 21.06.2025, registered
under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 126(2), 191(3), 190 [Sections 109 and
117(2) having subsequently been added] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 (corresponding to Sections 323, 506, 341, 148, 149 [Sections 307
and 325 having subsequently been added] of the Indian Penal Code), at
Police Station Division No. 3, District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana,
( Annexure P-2 ).
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 15:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-48775-2026 (O&M) -:2:-
2.  Brief facts of the case are that the FIR was registered on the
statement of complainant-Manikjot Singh, alleging that on 20.06.2025, at
about 8.20 p.m., while returning home on his Activa, he was intercepted
by Abhi Verma and another person and thereafter chased by three persons.
Pursuant to an assurance given by Harman Sandhu’s father that the dispute
would be resolved, the complainant, along with his brother Taran Noor
Singh and Rudar Rai, proceeded towards the Corporation office. There,
about 15–20 persons allegedly armed with swords, a pistol, baseball
slugger, iron buckets and bricks attacked them. Karan Sharma allegedly
inflicted a sword blow on the complainant’s head, while other accused
caused injuries to him and Rudar Rai. Both were thereafter shifted to CMC
Hospital, Ludhiana. On these allegations, the present FIR was registered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case and is innocent of the
allegations levelled against him. It is submitted that the petitioner has been
in custody since 04.08.2026. The specific allegation attributed to the
petitioner is that he inflicted a sword blow on the rear side of the head of
complainant-Manikjot Singh. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner
himself sustained injuries in the course of the occurrence and that, in fact,
it was the complainant party which had initially attacked the petitioner and
his friends while they were playing cricket in front of the petitioner's
house. It is further contended that when the petitioner was attacked with a
sword, he raised his hand in an attempt to avert the blow, as a result
whereof the sword blow landed on his hand. Thereafter, in an endeavour to
protect himself, the petitioner allegedly managed to snatch the sword from
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 15:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-48775-2026 (O&M) -:3:-
the assailant and, while the complainant party was fleeing from the spot,
inflicted a sword blow on the rear side of the complainant's head in
exercise of his right of private defence. It is argued that the injury
attributed to the petitioner is simple in nature.
3.1. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was
admitted in the hospital and underwent surgery on his hand and, owing to
his medical condition, was not in a position to append his signatures. It is,
therefore, contended that although the arrest memo purports to record the
supply of grounds of arrest, the same does not bear the petitioner's
signatures. On this basis, learned counsel submits that the statutory
requirement regarding communication of the grounds of arrest was not
duly complied with in the petitioner's case. It is accordingly argued that
the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail, particularly in view
of the circumstances surrounding the occurrence, the nature of the injury
attributed to him and the fact that he has remained in custody since
04.08.2026.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel
appearing for the complainant, has vehemently opposed the petition.
While placing reliance upon the impugned order, learned State counsel
submits that the learned Court below has passed the same after duly
considering the entire factual matrix of the case, the nature and gravity of
the allegations and the relevant material available on the record. It is
further contended that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in
nature and that, having regard to the overall circumstances of the case and
the material collected during investigation, the petitioner does not deserve
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 15:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-48775-2026 (O&M) -:4:-
the discretionary concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel
accordingly prays for dismissal of the present petition.
5. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the paper-book, this Court is of the considered view that the
petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail at this stage.
Significantly, even as per the petitioner's own version, the complainant
party had allegedly attacked him with a sword, whereupon, in order to
protect himself, he raised his hand and sustained an injury thereon and
thereafter succeeded in snatching the sword from the assailant. However,
the petitioner's own defence gives rise to a material circumstance which
militates against the plea of exercise of the right of private defence. Once,
according to the petitioner himself, he had successfully disarmed the
alleged aggressor and the members of the complainant party had started
retreating and were attempting to flee from the spot, the immediate
apprehension of danger, if any, stood materially altered. In such
circumstances, the subsequent infliction of a sword blow upon the rear
side of the head of the complainant, which is undoubtedly a vital part of
the body, raises a serious and arguable question as to whether the act
attributed to the petitioner can, at this stage, legitimately be regarded as an
act done in bona fide exercise of the right of private defence or whether
the same travelled beyond the permissible contours of such right. This
aspect assumes greater significance in view of the nature and situs of the
injury attributed to the petitioner and the allegation that the blow was
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 15:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-48775-2026 (O&M) -:5:-
inflicted when the complainant party was allegedly making good its
escape.
5.1. It is also noteworthy that the prosecution case attributes to the
petitioner a specific role of inflicting a sword blow upon the rear side of
the complainant's head, while the occurrence itself is stated to have
involved several armed persons and multiple injuries. The plea of self-
defence, therefore, cannot be accepted at face value at the present stage,
particularly when the petitioner's own version furnishes circumstances
which require proper evaluation on the basis of the evidence to be led
during trial. The plea regarding the nature of the injury being simple in
itself cannot, in the totality of the circumstances, eclipse the manner in
which the weapon is alleged to have been used or the vital part of the body
where the blow was allegedly inflicted. Likewise, the plea regarding non-
supply of grounds of arrest, founded primarily upon the petitioner's
inability to append his signatures to the relevant document owing to his
medical condition, is a matter which would require examination on the
basis of the complete record and cannot, in the facts and circumstances of
the present case, furnish a sufficient ground for enlargement on regular
bail.
5.2. Having regard to the gravity and nature of the alleged offence,
the specific role attributed to the petitioner, the use of a sword as the
weapon of offence, the vital part of the body upon which the blow was
allegedly inflicted, the circumstances in which the said blow is stated to
have been caused, and all other relevant and material facts and
circumstances borne out from the record, this Court is not persuaded to
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 15:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-48775-2026 (O&M) -:6:-
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner at this
stage. The competing plea of self-defence involves questions of fact and
appreciation of evidence which are appropriately left to be determined
during trial and cannot be conclusively adjudicated upon in these
proceedings.
5.3. It is, however, clarified that the observations made here-in-
above are confined strictly to the adjudication of the present bail petition
and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the
case or the defence of the petitioner. Finding no sufficient ground to
enlarge the petitioner on regular bail, the present petition is, accordingly,
dismissed .
6. In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all
pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising therefrom or being
ancillary thereto, have been rendered infructuous and stand disposed of
accordingly. The final determination of the substantive proceedings having
exhausted the very substratum and surviving cause, if any, of such
ancillary applications, no separate or further order is, therefore, warranted
in respect thereof.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
08.09.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 15:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document