Channa v. Vers State of Pun of Punjab
Case Details
CRM-M- -64687-2025 1- -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN CHANDIGA PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH 111 CRM-M-64687-2025 .2025 Date of Decision: 17.11.2025 Gurcharan haran Singh @ Channa Versus Vers State of Pun of Punjab …Petitioner. …Respondent. CORAM: AM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AA CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. Present: Mr. Kuljit Singh, Advocate for ate for the petitioner. Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, DAG, P AG, Punjab. **** AARADHN ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) 1. Petitioner, an accused in cas in case FIR No. 126 dated 5.9.20 .9.2016, registered tered against him under Sections 34 342, 323, 365, 148, 149 of India f Indian Penal Code l Code, at Police Station Sadar Fazil r Fazilka District Fazilka, has filed th iled the present peti nt petition for grant of anticipatory bai ory bail. 2. Relevant facts as emerging fr ging from the documents on record b cord be noticed her ed hereinbelow:- Mangat Lal son of Varya aryam Chand, an agriculturist b ist by profession sion set the criminal law in motion otion by filing a complaint pointin inting therein tha that he is a follower of Dera Beas eas and is also engaged in serving ing in Dera. Alon Along with him, one Satnam Singh s gh son of Uttar Singh, a co-villager ger is also follow llower of the Dera. At about 9.30 P 0 PM on 4.9.2016, he (c) and Satna atnam Singh were were heading back for their respect pective homes and had reached nea d near GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.28 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -64687-2025 2- -2 the house use of Bachan Singh, when son of n of Bachan Singh, namely, Param ramjit Singh alia alias Pama and Gurcharan Sing Singh alias Channa Fouji (prese resent petitioner) ner) were noticed standing in fron front of their gate. On seeing the them (complaina lainant and Satnam Singh), Pama ma Singh called his father Bacha achan Singh and and shouted that they would not sp ot spare Satnam Singh. Immediate iately thereafter, fter, Bachan Singh, his wife Mukhti khtiaro Bai and their daughter Sar Saroj Rani came ame out of the house and started be d beating Satnam Singh and dragge agged him to their their house. On hearing cries of co complainant, his father Uttar Sing Singh, brother Sar Saroop Singh and other family mem members of Satnam Singh reached hed at the spot. U ot. Uttam Singh, relative of Satnam tnam Singh, whose house is situate tuated close to th o the place of occurrence also rus rushed to the spot and in order der to rescue Satn
Legal Reasoning
Satnam Singh, said Uttam Singh fir h fired two rounds in the air from h om his licensed re d revolver. Thereafter, Satnam Sing Singh was got rescued and rushed hed to Civil Hosp ospital, Fazilka by his relatives, fro , from where he was further referre ferred
Legal Reasoning
to Sri Gu Guru Gobind Singh Medical C l College and Hospital, Faridko ridkot. Complaina ainant requested the police authorit orities to catch hold of the assailan ilants and to initi initiate appropriate proceedings ag s against them. On the basis of sa f said complaint, int, a formal case vide FIR No. 12 126 dated 5.9.2016, was registere stered under Sect Sections 342, 323, 365, 148, 149 49 of Indian Penal Code, at Polic Police Station Sad Sadar Fazilka District Fazilka. Apprehending his arrest, peti t, petitioner moved an application fo tion for pre-arrest b rrest bail, which came to be dismisse smissed by learned Additional Session essions Judge, Fazi Fazilka, vide order dated 18.7.2025 .2025. Aggrieved of the same, prese present petition has ion has been filed for grant of bail. 3. Learned counsel for the petiti petitioner contends that petitioner ha ner has been falsel falsely implicated in the present case nt case. He is serving in the Army an rmy and GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.28 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -64687-2025 3- -3 was not eve even present at the spot on the day the day of alleged occurrence. Learne Learned counsel fur sel further submits that all the offenc offences except offence under Sectio Section 365 of IPC f IPC, are bailable. Exaggerated incor incorrect version has been given in th n in the FIR. Towa Towards the end, learned counsel unsel contends that even though n ugh no recovery is ery is to be effected from petitioner, b oner, but he is ready and willing to jo g to join investigatio tigation as and when called for. Pra r. Prayer for allowing present petitio petition has been m een made. 4. On advance notice, learned arned State counsel appears and h and has opposed th sed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest b rrest bail on the ground that apart fro art from inflicting in ting injuries upon complainant, petitio petitioner also presented a forged lett ed letter to the polic e police authorities, thus, giving them g them the impression that he was o was on duty, which which when verified was found to b d to be incorrect. In view of the ro the role played by p d by petitioner in the incident, who a who along with other family membe embers unleashed shed an attack on complainant, wh nt, who had to be rushed to nearb nearby hospital, w ital, where after first-aid treatment, ment, seeing his (c) delicate medic medical condition, ition, was referred to Sri Guru Gob u Gobind Singh Medical College an ege and Hospital, F ital, Faridkot, no case for grant of bail of bail is made out. 5. Heard learned counsel for th for the parties and have perused th sed the documents ments on record. 6. Before expressing any opinio inion 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 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 GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.28 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -64687-2025 4- -4 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 ociety as well. The anticipatory ba ory bail is an extraordinary discretio scretion which shou h should be exercised in the extraordin aordinary circumstances. 8. 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 ravity 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 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.” GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.28 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -64687-2025 5- -5 9. 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.” 10. 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. During the ng the course of submissions, as noted noted above, it has been brought to th ht to the notice of C e of Court that petitioner fabricated a ated a letter purportedly written by h n by his Commandi manding Officer indicating therein erein that he was on duty, wherea whereas actually he lly he was on leave on the day the ay the incident occurred and has bee as been absconding onding since 2023. That apart, docum documents on the record reveal that al that a petition bea ion bearing CRM-M-38878-2017 for q 7 for quashing of the FIR had been file en filed by petition etitioner, which was later withdrawn. rawn. When seen in totality, petition oner has not bee ot been able to make out a case of exc of exceptional depravity or hardship dship in his favour e vour entitling him this extra ordinary t bail. inary relief of grant of pre-arrest bail. 11. The petition being devoid of a id of any merit is hereby dismissed. .2025 17.11.2025 gbs NEY) (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.28 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document