10.12.2025 Maandeep ndeep Singh @ Mandeep Singh @ Maa @ Maan v. Vers State of Pun of Punjab
Case Details
CRM-M- -45075-2025 1- -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN CHANDIGA PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH 214 CRM-M-45075-2025 .2025 Date of Decision: 10.12.2025 Maandeep ndeep Singh @ Mandeep Singh @ Maa @ Maan Versus Vers State of Pun of Punjab …Petitioner. …Respondent. CORAM: AM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AA CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. Present: Mr. S.S. Nagra, Advocate for ate for the petitioner. Mr. Gautam Thapar, Senior DA nior DAG, Punjab. **** AARADHN ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) 1. Petitioner, an accused in case n case FIR No. 117 dated 05.06.202 2025, registered a tered against him under Sections 109, s 109, 111, 191(3), 190, 61(2), 3(5) 3(5) of BNS and S and Section 25, 27, 54, 59 of Arms Arms Act, at Police Station Jandial andiala, Amritsar, h , has filed the present petition unde under Section 482 of BNSS, for gra or grant of anticipat ticipatory bail. 2. Relevant facts as emerging fr ging from the documents on record b cord be noticed her ed hereinbelow:- Kashmir Singh, set the crim criminal law in motion by filing ling a complaint int pointing therein that he is a Ta a Tailor by profession and whenev enever there is a l s a less work, he works as a labour bourer in a godown outside Surind rinder Kumar Dep Departmental shop. At about 11.1 11.15 AM on 5.6.2025, when he wa e was working in g in the godown outside the Dep Departmental Store, three unknow known GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.17 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -45075-2025 2- -2 youngsters ters came on the motorcycle and
Facts
and fired shots at him, conseque equent thereto, h , he received two gunshot injuries. ries. When people started gatherin ering, the miscrea screants fled away. Complainant a nt also pointed out that later he als e also came to kn o know that Surinder Kumar had be d been receiving number of extortio ortion calls from om the gangsters and since money h ney had not been paid, the miscrean reants had attack tacked. He requested the police of ce officials to catch hold of all tho those responsible sible as also to initiate appropriate iate action against them. Based upo upon the said co d complaint, a formal case vide FIR e FIR No. 117 dated 05.06.2025, wa was registered red against him under Sections 109 109, 111, 191(3), 190, 61(2), 3(5) (5) of BNS and S nd Section 25, 27, 54, 59 of Arms rms Act, at Police Station Jandial diala, Amritsar. Investigations were set into m into motion, during which medico leg co legal report of c rt of complainant-injured was also co lso collected. Few days thereafter, i.e ter, i.e., on 8.6.202 .6.2025, the supplementary statemen tement of complainant was recorde ecorded, wherein he ein he raised suspicion on following pe ing persons:- Jaswant Singh Jassa (i) (ii) Harjot Singh (iii) Bikku Dhobi (iii) (iv) Deepak Kumar @ Deepak (iv) (v) Hardev Singh During the course of f investigation, owner of Surind inv urinder Departmen rtmental Store also stated on similar li ilar lines. Co-accused Ramanpreet Sin t Singh @ Raman was arrested o sted on 13.6.2025 2025, who during interrogation s ion suffered a disclosure stateme atement admitting tting to his involvement in the co the commission of offence and als nd also disclosed t osed the identification details of his his other accomplices as Gurpre urpreet Singh (his (his cousin brother), Maandeep Sing p Singh- petitioner (friend of his cous s cousin GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.17 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -45075-2025 3- -3 Gurpreet S reet Singh) and also another friend friend of his cousin Gupreet Sing Singh. Admittedly ly, two disclosure statements wer ts were suffered by Ramanpreet Sing t Singh. On the basi he basis of these statements, petitioner titioner was nominated as co-accused cused in the present resent case. Apprehending his arrest, petiti , petitioner filed an application for gra or grant of pre-arre arrest bail. Same was dismissed issed by learned Additional Session essions Judge, Am e, Amritsar vide order dated 29.7.2 29.7.2025. Aggrieved of which, ich, the present peti nt petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petit petitioner submits that petitioner ha ner has been falsely falsely implicated in the present case t case. His name did not figure in th e in the FIR. He w He was nominated as accused onl d only on the basis of the disclosu sclosure statement o ment of Ramanpreet Singh, which has ch has no evidentiary value. Continuin ntinuing further, lea
Legal Reasoning
being on the prima facie issue ssues including consideration of som f some reasonable grounds that woul would go to show if the accused ha d has committed the offence or thos those facts that would reflect on th on the seriousness of the offence. The . The self-imposed restraint on delvin elving deep into the analysis of the e the evidence at that stage is for val valid reasons, namely, to prevent an nt any prejudice to the case set up b up by the prosecution or the defence ence likely to be taken by the accuse cused and to keep all aspects of t of the matter open till the trial rial is concluded. 12. In Prasanta Kumar Sa r Sarkar's case (supra) (Prasan asanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashish Ch h Chatterjee and another), a Divisio ivision GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.17 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -45075-2025 7- -7 Bench of this Court had highli ighlighted the factors that ought to b t to be borne in mind while con considering the anticipatory ba bail application and had stated tha that :- "9. We are of the opinion tha n that the impugned order is clear learly unsustainable. It is trite that that this Court does not, normall mally, interfere with an order passe assed by the High Court granting o ing or rejecting bail to the accused. sed. However, it is equally incumbe mbent upon the High Court to exe exercise its discretion judiciousl iously, cautiously and strictly in com compliance with the basic principl ciples laid down in a plethora of dec f decisions of this Court on the poin point. It is well settled that, among o ng other circumstances, the factors tors to be borne in mind while conside dering an application for bail are l are: (i) whether there is any prim prima facie or reasonable ground und to believe that the accused had co ad committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the a he accusation; (iii)severity of the punishment ent in the event of conviction; (iv)danger of the accused abs absconding or fleeing, if released o sed on bail; (v) character, behaviour, mea means, position and standing of th of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence be ce being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension sion of the witnesses being influence enced; and (viii) danger, of course, of just of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” 11. The factual backdrop of the f the case and the role played by th by the petitioner i ioner in the entire incident has been h een highlighted in para 2 of this orde is order. Admittedly ittedly, in the incident, complainant t suffered firearm injuries. In th In the complaint, laint, it was further specifically men ly mentioned that Surinder Kumar ha mar had been receiv receiving extortion calls from the ga the gangsters and when he refused fused to budge in, g e in, gunshots were fired outside his s his store/godown, only with a view view to GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.17 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -45075-2025 8- -8 scare him a him and the other persons. As has b s has been rightly contended by learne learned State coun counsel the fact that while the in the investigations are under way, a ay, an affidavit is avit is stated to have been executed cuted by complainant deposing there therein that petition petitioner and others did not participat ticipate in the incident, clearly sugges suggests that he has he has been threatened and that the at the said affidavit is an outcome o ome of threat/coerc t/coercion/pressure etc. and, thus, de us, deserves not to be taken note o note of. Order date r dated 4.10.2025 passed by learn learned Additional Sessions Judg Judge, Amritsar v itsar vide which Ramanpreet Singh a ingh alias Raman has been granted th nted the concession ession of bail only on the strength of s th of said affidavit has also been looke looked into. This C This Court deems it appropriate to su e to suggest the learned trial Court to b urt to be more sensi sensitive to the safety and securit security of the witnesses. Such lik ch like incidents a ents are crime against the society an ety and not against a particular perso r person and, theref therefore, have to be dealt with stric h strictly. Nonetheless, in view of th of the discussion ssion made hereinabove, the Court is ourt is of the opinion that petitioner ner has not been ab een able to make out a case of except exceptional depravity or hardship in h ip in his favour entit ur entitling him this extra ordinary relie ry relief of grant of pre-arrest bail. 12. The petition being devoid of a id of any merit is hereby dismissed. .2025 10.12.2025 gbs NEY) (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.17 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Arguments
er, learned counsel contends that petiti petitioner has no concern with case, a case, as also that that the other three accused who acti o actively participated in the shootou hootout, namely, Ra Ramandeep Singh, Gurpreet Sing t Singh and Harpreet Singh alias Ma as Mani had taken taken petitioner to a hotel on the pre he pretext of arranging a get togethe ogether. Petitioner w ioner was totally unaware of their pl eir plans and had left the hotel in th l in the early hours hours of 5.6.2025. It is also the submission of le n of learned counsel that falsity of th y of the case set up set up by the prosecution is apparen pparent from the fact that complaina plainant Kashmir Si mir Singh, at whose behest, the procee proceedings were initiated, executed a cuted an affidavit de avit deposing therein that petitioner an oner and three others named in the FI the FIR did not pa ot participate in the incident, neithe her any injuries were inflicted icted by them. In th . In the light of the said affidavit, it is it, it is evident that petitioner deserves serves a lenient view nt view to be taken in his favour. Mo r. Moreover, the presence of petition etitioner is not need t needed for custodial interrogation as tion as nothing is to be recovered fro ed from GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.17 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -45075-2025 4- -4 him. None Nonetheless, being a law abiding ci ing citizen, he is ready and willing illing to join the inv the investigation as and when called fo lled for. 4. Per Contra, while opposing t sing the request of petitioner for gra or grant of bail, lear learned State counsel contends tha ds that the plea taken by petitioner th ner that he has been as been falsely arrayed as an accused cused deserves not to be taken note o note of, for co-accu accused Ramanpreet, who was the as the first to be arrested, suffered ffered a disclosure s osure statement in which he took the n k the name of petitioner and highlighte hlighted the role pla ole played by him. The motorcycle e of co- rcycle recovered at the instance of co accused R sed Ramanpreet was registered in d in the name of petitioner, whic , which dislodges t dges the plea of petitioner that he t he was unaware of the plan of oth other accused. In the incident, complainant K nant Kashmir Singh suffered fire ar ire arm injuries. T ies. The fact that complainant exec t executed an affidavit (referred to b d to by learned cou ed counsel for petitioner) while the the investigations are still ongoing oing, is indicative o ative of the influence and the power power wielded by petitioner and oth d other accused. F sed. Further, learned State counsel sub sel submits that presence of petitioner tioner is needed for ed for custodial interrogation to find to find out the intricacies of the cas he case, recover the er the ‘Activa’ used in the commissio mission of offence as also to find out a d out as to who all ho all are involved in this racket of e et of extorting money from well place l placed person/busi /businessman of the area. Prayer f ayer for dismissal of the petition wa ion was made. 5. Heard learned counsel for th for the parties and have perused th sed the documents ments on record. 6. Before expressing any opinio opinion on submissions raised by bo by both the counse counsels, it would be appropriate to iate to refer to certain judgments o ents of Hon’ble Su ble Supreme Court, wherein the fa the factors to be kept in mind whi d while GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.17 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -45075-2025 5- -5 dealing wi ng with an application for grant o rant of anticipatory bail, have bee e been ssed. discussed. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in rt in plethora of judicial preceden cedents including ding Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Pun Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632, has tim has time and again r gain reiterated that while considering dering the anticipatory bail the Court Court is to take int ke into consideration the facts like s like gravity of offence, chances o nces of accused tam sed tampering with the evidence and e and probabilities of his fleeing fro ng from justice etc. e etc. Court should be circumspect a pect about the impact of its decision o ision on the society ciety as well. The anticipatory ba ory bail is an extraordinary discretio scretion which shou h should be exercised in the extraordin aordinary circumstances. 8. In Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ etty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v av vs. The State tate of Maharashtra and another, her, 2025 AIR SC 3375, the Hon’b Hon’ble Supreme C eme Court held that “Anticipatory ba ry bail is an exceptional remedy an y and ought not t not to be granted in a routine manne nner.” 9. Hon’ble the Supreme Cou Court in “P. Chidambaram v m vs. Directorate orate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SC 3 SCC 791), has observed as under: nder:- “67. Ordinarily, arrest f is a part of procedure of is the th investigation to secure not onl t only the presence of the accused b ed but several other purposes. Power ower under Section 438 Cr.P.C 197 1973 is an extraordinary power an r and the same has to be exercise rcised sparingly. The privilege of the f the pre-arrest bail should be grante ranted only in exceptional cases. T s. The judicial discretion conferre ferred upon the court has to be prope roperly exercised after application tion of mind as to the nature and gra gravity of the accusation; possibili ibility of applicant fleeing justice an e and other factors to decide wheth hether it is a fit case for grant ant of anticipatory bail. Grant nt of GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.17 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -45075-2025 6- -6 anticipatory bail to some ex e extent interferes in the sphere ere of investigation of an offence nce and hence, the court must b st be circumspect while exercisin cising such power for grant nt of anticipatory bail. Anticipator atory bail is not to be granted as as a matter of rule and it has to b to be granted only when the court ourt is convinced that exceptional cir l circumstances exist to resort to th to that extraordinary remedy.” 10. Hon’ble the Supreme Court w ourt while deciding the case titled a titled as “Ms. X Vs. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and and another” (2023 SCC Online S ne SC 279) held a held as under:- “11.1. We propose to take a e a quick look at the consideration ations that ought to govern grant of a t of anticipatory bail. There are a lin a line of decisions of this court tha that have underscored the fact th ct that while deciding an application tion for bail, the court ought to refra efrain from undertaking a detailed a ed analysis of the evidence, the focu focus