Gurjit Singh v. State of Punjab
Case Details
CRM-M-35170-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-35170-2025 Reserved on: 03.09.2025 Pronounced on: 17.09.2025 Gurjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Ranjodh Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, D.A.G., Punjab. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 06 15.01.2025 Verowal, District 194(2), 115(2), 118(1), Tarn Taran 191(3), 190, 333, 117(2), 3(5), 118(2) BNS 1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail. 2. 3. Per Note 3 of the bail petition, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. Vide order dated 08.07.2025, the petitioner was granted interim protection and the said order is continuing till date. 4. The facts and allegations are being taken from the status report filed by the State, which reads as follows: “3. That the true facts leading to this case are that on 15.01.2025, ASI Bikar Singh along with other Police Officials were present at Adda Mianwind in a private vehicle for patrolling and searching for suspicious persons. Then, a public servant approached the Investigating Officer and informed that on one side, Sartaj Singh son of Amarjit Singh and Shubhdeep Singh son of Lakhwinder Singh, residents of Dolawal, along with 5/6 unknown individuals, and on the other side, Mangal Singh son of Dharam Singh and Surjit Singh son of Mangal Singh, residents of Dolawal, along with 7/8 unknown individuals, had a major altercation among themselves on January 6, 2025, the day of Nagar Kirtan, around 2/3 PM in the village, and they have injured each other. They are currently undergoing treatment in 1 Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.17 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh CRM-M-35170-2025 the hospital, which has created an atmosphere of fear among the general public. Even today, some unknown individuals of these two groups are roaming in the village armed with dangerous weapons and causing a nuisance. Since the information was true and reliable and on the basis of which, the present case FIR No.06 dated 15.01.2025, under section 194(2)/115(2)/118(1)/191(3)/190 of BNS, 2023 has been registered at Police Station Verowal, District Tarn Taran against the accused namely Sartaj Singh, Shubhdeep Singh, Mangal Singh and Surjit Singh along with 7 unknown persons.” 5. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. 6. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection. 7. 8. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report, which read as follows: “ROLE OF THE PETITIONER: 17. That as far as role of the petitioner is concerned, it is submitted that the petitioner has given sword blow upon the injured Sartaj Singh which hit the little finger of his right hand and also on the wrist of his right hand and the injury attributed to the petitioner was also declared grievous in nature by the board of doctors. Moreover, the injury No.1 inflicted by the petitioner Gurjit Singh on the wrist of his right hand was declared as Grievous in Nature. Moreover, the weapon used by the petitioner has not been get recovered by the petitioner. As such, there are specific allegations against the petitioner and the petitioner has committed the serious offence and he is certainly not entitled for the concession of anticipatory bail.” 9. Allegation against the petitioner is that he has given sword blow upon the injured which hit little finger of his right hand and also on the wrist and the injury was declared grievous in nature. Although the injury is grievous, but considering the fact that it is on non-vital part and petitioner is a first offender and given the undertaking by counsel for the petitioner, this Court wants to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to course correct. Moreover, it is a case of version and cross-version. 10. The petitioner was granted interim protection, and during the interregnum, there is no allegation that he had intimidated the witnesses, hampered the investigation, or, Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.17 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-35170-2025 despite being called to join the investigation, did not appear before the investigator. Given the above, there would be no justification to discontinue the interim protection, which is made absolute subject to the petitioner complying with the terms of the bail order and the following additional conditions. 11. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation within seven days of uploading this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Investigator. The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During the investigation, the petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc. 12. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 13. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. 14. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. Interim order dated 08.07.2025 is
Decision
made absolute. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 17.09.2025 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No. Whether reportable: Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.17 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 3