Jagjiwan Singh v. State of Punjab
Case Details
CRM-M-37674-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Sr. No.209 Case No. : CRM-M-37674-2025 Decided On : September 15, 2025 Jagjiwan Singh .... Petitioner vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR. * * *
Legal Reasoning
Present : Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P. S. Pandher, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Lovepreet Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant. * * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J. : Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.178 dated 30.06.2025, under Sections 109, 61(2), 191(3), 190, 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Bathinda. Brief facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIR was got registered on the complaint made by one Ramandeep Singh, wherein it was stated that he was running a grocery shop in Village Kallo, District Mansa and due to this reason, he came in contact with Jagjiwan Singh (present petitioner) and Harpreet Singh of the same village. He further stated that his shop was situated in Ward No.06, from where petitioner’s brother namely MONIKA 2025.09.17 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37674-2025 2 Tarsem Singh was contesting elections. So, the petitioner and aforesaid Harpeet Singh asked the complainant to support Tarsem Singh but the complainant did not do so. Instead, he supported his own friend namely Ramandeep Singh in the elections. Due to this reason, the petitioner started keeping grudge against the complainant and asked him to vacate his shop. Even two months prior to the incident in question, petitioner Jagjiwan Singh, Harpreet Singh and one Khushpreet Singh came to his shop and threatened him with dire consequences, in case the shop was not vacated by him. The complainant further stated that on 28.06.2025, he went to Bathinda for some work and visited a restaurant for taking meals, but when he came out of said restaurant, he saw aforesaid Khushpreet Singh along with Desh Prem and Maninder Singh @ Mani @ Sangha, all of them armed with kirpan and 4-5 unknown persons holding rods in their hands. They all were waiting outside the restaurant for the complainant and attacked him on seeing him. Khushpreet Singh and Maninder Singh attacked him with their kirpans and tried to hit his head. When complainant tried to save himself, injury was caused on his right shoulder. The unknown person also tried to hit his head with rod, which hit his left arm. He ran for his safety and Desh Prem, while chasing the complainant, struck him again on the back of his right shoulder with kirpan. He defended himself while taking out his 32 bore revolver. All the accused, while threatening the complainant, fled away with their weapons, saying that they would finish the complainant and he would not be able to save himself for long from Harpreet Singh and Jagjiwan Singh. The complainant further stated in his statement that out of fear, he neither went to any hospital nor filed any complaint, but after 2 days i.e. on 30.06.2025, MONIKA 2025.09.17 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37674-2025 3 he gathered courage and got recorded his statement, narrating the aforesaid incident. On his statement, the FIR in question was registered against the petitioner and all the other co-accused, as mentioned above. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. No injury has been attributed to him. There is delay of more than two days in lodging the FIR. No MLR of the injured/complainant has been placed on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. He is not required for any interrogation and thus, prayed that the petitioner be granted concession of anticipatory bail. Notice in this case was issued on 17.07.2025 and Status Report was filed by the State. However, later on, time was sought by learned State counsel to verify whether the complainant got himself medico- legally examined or not and what injuries were allegedly caused. Today, learned State counsel has placed on record Status Report by way of affidavit of Harjot Singh, Inspector, Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Bathinda, alleging that the complainant did not get himself medico legally examined. However, opposing the present bail petition, learned State counsel contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature and in connivance with the other co- accused, he actively participated in the occurrence. So, his custodial interrogation is required for fair and proper investigation and if he is granted relief of anticipatory bail, he may influence the prosecution witnesses, thereby hampering the investigation. MONIKA 2025.09.17 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37674-2025 4 Heard. As per the allegations in the present FIR, the co-accused had caused injuries to the complainant, at instance of petitioner Jagjiwan Singh and Harpreet Singh and the said injuries were inflicted on person of the complainant by co-accused Khushpreet Singh, armed with kirpan, co- accused Desh Prem, armed with kirpan, co-accused Maninder Singh @ Mani @ Sangha armed with kirpan and 4-5 unknown persons, carrying iron rods. As per the Status Report, submitted by learned State counsel, the complainant did not get himself admitted in any hospital regarding injuries on his person and he was not medico legally examined. No MLR of injured/complainant has been placed on record. Otherwise also, even as per the allegations, the petitioner was not present at the spot and no injury has been attributed to him. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for any purpose and nothing is to be recovered from him. So, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. In the event of arrest, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on furnishing bail/surety bonds, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer, subject to the conditions, as provided under Section 482(2) of BNSS. It will be open for the Investigating Officer to call the petitioner to join investigation, if so required, by issuing a written notice in this regard. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions mentioned in Section 482(2) of the BNSS. However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations MONIKA 2025.09.17 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37674-2025 5 recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition.
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of along with the present petition. September 15, 2025 monika (SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No. Whether reportable ? Yes/No. MONIKA 2025.09.17 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document