Sunil Kuma l Kumar v. State of Pun of Punjab CRM
Case Details
CRM-M- -29404-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN CHANDIGA PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH 212 Sunil Kuma l Kumar v. State of Pun of Punjab CRM-M-29404-2025 2025 Date of Decision: 22.9.2025 …Petitioner. …Respondent. CORAM: AM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S ICE SUKHVINDER KAUR Present: Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Rehan, Ad an, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Pandher, AAG, Punja , Punjab. **** SUKHVIN HVINDER KAUR, J. (Oral) 1. Present petition has been filed n filed under Section 482 of BNSS fo NSS for grant of an of anticipatory bail to the petitioner
Legal Reasoning
titioner in FIR No. 47 dated 4.4.202 .4.2025, under Secti r Sections 121(1), 221, 132, 308(2), 1 (2), 191(3) and 190 of BNS, registere gistered at Police St lice Station Garhshankar, District Hos ct Hoshiarpur. 2. Brief facts of this case are tha are that the present FIR was registere gistered on the stat e statement of Sandeep Singh, who who was employed as a conductor uctor in PRTC at C C at Chandigarh. As per the allegati llegations, the bus bearing registratio istration No. PB65B PB65BB-7985 started from Fazilka a ilka at 3.57 PM for Hoshiarpur. Tw r. Two passengers ngers under the influence of intox intoxicant also boarded the bus o bus on 3.4.2025 an 025 and when the said bus reached a .10 PM, ched at Garhshankar at about 6.10 PM they started started quarrelling with the complaina plainant and also started harassing th sing the other passe passengers. They also called three bo hree boys who parked their motorcyc orcycles in front of ont of the bus and pushed the compla omplainant from the bus. They starte started giving blow g blows to the complainant with datar datar, iron rod and baseball bat havin t having GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.09.23 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -29404-2025 -2- in their han eir hands. He fell down after receiving eiving the injuries and the driver of th er of the bus, namely namely, Ravinder Mohan came out of out of the bus and rescued him from th rom the clutches of hes of the above said persons. The c The complainant was got admitted itted in Civil Hosp Hospital, Garhshankar and due to re e to receipt of serious injuries, he wa he was referred to red to Government Medical College ollege, Sector 32, Chandigarh. Th The above said e said persons obstructed him from do rom doing his duty and also took awa away his mobile obile phone and Rs.50,000/- lying in ing in the cash bag. On the basis of th is of the aforesaid al said allegations, the present FIR was r ioner. was registered against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the pe he petitioner has contended that th that the petitioner h ioner has been falsely implicated in ted in the present case and has bee as been nominated nated as an accused only on the basis basis of the disclosure statement mad nt made by the co e co-accused which is not permissibl issible in law. He has also contende ntended that the pet the petitioner was not present at the sp the spot and no specific attribution ha tion has been made made to him. He prayed for grant of a itioner. nt of anticipatory bail to the petitioner 4. While issuing notice of motio motion on 26.5.2025, respondent-Sta State was directe directed to file status report, which was ch was filed on 21.8.2025. 5. Learned State counsel, while while referring to the status report, ha ort, has opposed th the bail application while contend ontending that the petitioner along wi ng with his co-accu accused had attacked the complaina plainant and inflicted injures. Learne Learned counsel has sel has further contended that the wea weapons used in the crime are yet re yet to be recovere covered and the role and involvem olvement of the petitioner is yet to b et to be ascertained tained. Learned State counsel has pra has prayed for dismissal of the prese present petition. 6.
Legal Reasoning
I have heard learned counsel f unsel for the parties and have also gon lso gone through the gh the case file. GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.09.23 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -29404-2025 -3- 7. Initially, the petitioner was no as not named in the FIR and his nam is name surfaced in ced in the present case later on, on the on the basis of the disclosure stateme atement of co-accus accused Sandeep Kumar and Aryan Aryan @ Abhi. No specific role ha role has been attrib attributed to the present petitioner. tioner. Some of the co-accused hav ed have already bee dy been arrested. The custodial inte al interrogation of the petitioner is n r is not required fo ired for any purpose and no useful pur ful purpose would be served by sendin sending the petition etitioner behind the bars. 8. Accordingly, without commen mmenting on the merits of the case, th ase, the present pet nt petition is allowed. In the even e event of his arrest, the petitioner ioner is ordered to red to be released on bail, on his fur his furnishing bail/surety bonds, to th o the satisfaction faction of the Arresting Officer/Inve r/Investigating Officer, subject to th t to the conditions, itions, as provided under Section 482 n 482(2) of BNSS. It will be open fo pen for the Investi nvestigating Officer to call the petit e petitioner to join investigation, if s n, if so required, by ired, by issuing a written notice in this in this regard and he shall abide by th e by the conditions itions mentioned in Section 482(2) of t (2) of the BNSS. 9. However, nothing observed h rved herein above shall be construed trued to be an expr n expression of opinion on the meri merits of the case. The observation rvations recorded ded above are only for the purpos purpose of deciding the present ba ent bail application cation. 10. Pending application(s), if any,
Decision
if any, shall also stand disposed of. .2025 22.09.2025 gbs (SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE ned? Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? : : Yes/No Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.09.23 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document