Gurjant Sin ant Singh v. Vers State of Pun of Punjab CRM
Case Details
CRM-M- -73325-2025 1- -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN CHANDIGA PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH 120 Gurjant Sin ant Singh Versus Vers State of Pun of Punjab CRM-M-73325-2025 .2025 Date of Decision: 24.12.2025 …Petitioner. …Respondent. CORAM: AM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AA CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. Present: Mr. Aajeshwar Singh Grewal, rewal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, DAG, P AG, Punjab. **** AARADHN ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) 1. Petitioner, an accused in case n case FIR No. 305 dated 23.11.20 .2025, registered a tered against him under Sections 115( 115(2), 118(1) of BNS (offence und e under Section 118 on 118(1) of BNS has been deleted an ted and offence under Section 118(2) o 18(2) of BNS has b has been added vide DDR No.36 da .36 dated 1.12.2025), at Police Statio Station Talwandi S andi Sabo, District Bathinda, has filed as filed the present petition for grant o grant of anticipatory ipatory bail. 2. Relevant facts as emerging fr ging from the documents on record b cord be noticed her ed hereinbelow:- Boota Khan, son of Bhura K ra Khan, resident of Singo, set et the criminal la al law in motion by filing a complai plaint pointing therein that his fath father Bhura Kha Khan had died about nine years ag s ago, leaving behind his mother Sm
Legal Reasoning
r Smt. Nikki Kaur aur and four children including th g the complainant. He and the oth other GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.26 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -73325-2025 2- -2 two sisters ters are married and residing sepa separately. Youngest of the sibling ling is Gurjant Si t Singh, who had joined Indian Ar n Army in 2010. About four month onths ago, Gurja urjant Singh had come on leave b ve but did not report back for dut duty. Presently, tly, he is residing in Singo. Compl omplainant pointed out that he had had a land dispu ispute with his younger brother G er Gurjant Singh, who allegedly dly is cultivating ting land more than his share. Wh Whenever, he (c) demanded land and of his share are from Gurjant Singh, verbal al l altercation used to occur. In th In the evening of g of 21.11.2025, when he (c) was was present in his fields, he saw h w his younger br r brother Gurjant Singh, who was a as armed with ‘Gandasa’, standing ding a little distan istance away. When he asked Gur Gurjant Singh to leave his share are of land, Gurja urjant lost his cool and unleashed shed an attack. Complainant alleg lleges that he was was given repeated ‘Gandasa’ blow blows by his younger brother Gurja urjant Singh on h on his left leg, right side of back, , head etc. On hearing his cries ries of pain, as pe s people started gathering, Gurjant rjant Singh, fled away along with h ith his weapon. H n. He telephonically intimated his his wife who arranged for a vehic ehicle and rushed shed him to Civil Hospital, Talw alwandi Sabo, where first aid wa d was provided, b ed, but seeing his delicate medical c cal condition, he was referred to Civ Civil Hospital, B al, Bathdina. However, the family m ily members got him admitted to G Gold Medica Ho a Hospital, Bathinda, where he is st is still admitted. Primarily, with th th this backdrop, op, complainant requested the pol police authorities to catch hold old of Gurjant Sin t Singh as also to initiate appropria priate legal proceedings against him st him. Based on t on the said complaint and medico dico legal report, a formal case vid e vide FIR No. 30 305 dated 23.11.2025, was regis egistered against him under Section ctions 115(2), 11 , 118(1) of BNS (offence under S er Section 118(1) of BNS has bee been deleted and and offence under Section 118(2) o (2) of BNS has been added vide D DDR No.36 date dated 1.12.2025), at Police Station T ion Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda inda. GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.26 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -73325-2025 3- -3 After seeking the opinion of t of the treating doctor, offence und under Section 118 118(2) of BNS was added vide DDR DDR No. 36 dated 1.12.2025 (offenc ffence under Secti Section 118(1) was deleted. Apprehending his arrest, peti t, petitioner moved an application fo tion for pre-arrest b rrest bail before learned Additional tional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. Th a. The same came came to be dismissed by learned Add d Additional Sessions Judge, Bathind athinda, vide order order dated 16.12.2025. Aggrieved o eved of which, the present petition ha tion has been filed f filed for grant of bail. 3. Learned counsel for the petitio petitioner contends that petitioner, wh , who has been se een serving in Indian Army, has been s been falsely implicated in the prese present case by non by none else but his real brother. Tw r. Twisted facts have been given in th n in the complaint. laint. In fact, the portion of land of nd of petitioner had been leased out d out to complainan lainant Boota Khan, who had failed to ailed to pay the lease money. Petition etitioner and his mo his mother leased out the land to so to some other person, which was n was not taken in go good spirit by complainant, who , who since then was on look out of a ut of an opportunity rtunity to level scores with petitioner itioner. It is further the submission o ssion of learned co ed counsel that only with a view view to falsely implicate petitione titioner, complainan lainant suffered injuries, all of whi which are self-inflicted. Moreove oreover, nothing is t ing is to be recovered from petitioner, ioner, who nonetheless is willing to jo g to join the investig vestigation as and when called for. Pr Prayer for allowing present petitio petition has been m een made. 4. Per contra, while opposing the ing the request for grant of bail, learne learned State couns counsel submits that the story put fo put forth by petitioner that the injurie injuries suffered by red by complainant are self-inflicted d icted does not appeal to common sens n sense, for nobody obody would inflict injuries with a s ith a sharp edged weapon on his ow his own person. It i It is further the submission of learn f learned State counsel that the treatin treating GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.26 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -73325-2025 4- -4 doctor decl declared one of the injuries suffered uffered by complainant as ‘Grievous’ vous’ in nature, con e, consequent to which Section 118( n 118(2) of BNS was added. Learne Learned State coun counsel next contends that custodi odial interrogation of petitioner ioner is needed to r ed to recover the weapon of offence a ence and thus, in the factual scenario o nario of the case, p ase, petitioner has not been able to ble to make out a case of exception eptional depravity o avity or hardship in his favour entit r entitling him for the grant of ex of extra ordinary re ary relief of pre-arrest bail. 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 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 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 ate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SC 3 SCC 791), has observed as under: der:- “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 GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.26 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -73325-2025 5- -5 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 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.” 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 facts leading to the lodgi lodging of the FIR have already bee dy been narrated in ted in para 2 of the order. The ro he role played by petitioner has als as also specifically ifically been mentioned in the compla omplaint/FIR. It has already come o ome on record that d that one of the injuries inflicted licted by petitioner on the person o rson of complainan lainant with a sharp edged weapon ha pon has been declared as ‘Grievous’ vous’ in nature. A e. As has been rightly pointed ou ted out by learned State counsel, th sel, the custodial in dial interrogation of petitioner is ne r is needed to recover the weapon o apon of GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.26 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -73325-2025 6- -6 offence. ce. When seen in totality, petitioner itioner has not been able to make out ke out a case of exc of exceptional depravity or hardship rdship in his favour entitling him th im this extra ordina ordinary relief of grant of pre-arrest b rrest bail. 11. The petition being devoid of a id of any merit is hereby dismissed. .2025 24.12.2025 gbs NEY) (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.12.26 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document