CRM-M-69038- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Prem Singh State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. Mr. H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. This is the first petition under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 76 dated 05.06.2025, registered under Sections 103, 115(2), 351(2), 191, 190, 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 (Section 103 of BNS deleted the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, at Police Station Arniwala, District Fazilka. 2. Briefly stated, as per the prosecution version, the present FIR was registered on the statement o 04.06.2025 at about 3:30 PM, while he along with his brother Budh Parkash and sister-in-law Manjeet Kaur was working in their cotton fields, about 26 persons including the present petitioner, armed with d iron rods, spades and sabbals, arrived on tractors and started demolishing a government-sanctioned water course adjoining their fields. When the complainant party objected, the accused allegedly r Singh is stated to have given an iron rod blow on the head of Budh Parkash, who -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : Versus HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) This is the first petition under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 76 dated 05.06.2025, registered under Sections 103, 115(2), 351(2), 191, 190, 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 (Section 103 of BNS deleted later and Section 105 the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, at Police Station Arniwala, District Fazilka. Briefly stated, as per the prosecution version, the present FIR was registered on the statement of complainant Shinderpal Singh, who alleged that on 04.06.2025 at about 3:30 PM, while he along with his brother Budh Parkash and law Manjeet Kaur was working in their cotton fields, about 26 persons including the present petitioner, armed with deadly weapons such as dangs, sotas, iron rods, spades and sabbals, arrived on tractors and started demolishing a sanctioned water course adjoining their fields. When the complainant party objected, the accused allegedly raised lalkara and attack Singh is stated to have given an iron rod blow on the head of Budh Parkash, who -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-69038-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 26.02.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU Advocate for the petitioner. This is the first petition under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 76 dated 05.06.2025, registered under Sections 103, 115(2), 351(2), 191, 190, 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 105 of BNS added) and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, at Police Station Arniwala, Briefly stated, as per the prosecution version, the present FIR was f complainant Shinderpal Singh, who alleged that on 04.06.2025 at about 3:30 PM, while he along with his brother Budh Parkash and law Manjeet Kaur was working in their cotton fields, about 26 persons eadly weapons such as dangs, sotas, iron rods, spades and sabbals, arrived on tractors and started demolishing a sanctioned water course adjoining their fields. When the complainant aised lalkara and attacked them. Paramjeet Singh is stated to have given an iron rod blow on the head of Budh Parkash, who This is the first petition under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 76 dated 05.06.2025, registered under Sections 103, 115(2), 351(2), 191, 190, 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, at Police Station Arniwala, Briefly stated, as per the prosecution version, the present FIR was f complainant Shinderpal Singh, who alleged that on 04.06.2025 at about 3:30 PM, while he along with his brother Budh Parkash and law Manjeet Kaur was working in their cotton fields, about 26 persons eadly weapons such as dangs, sotas, iron rods, spades and sabbals, arrived on tractors and started demolishing a sanctioned water course adjoining their fields. When the complainant jeet Singh is stated to have given an iron rod blow on the head of Budh Parkash, who TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.26 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-69038- fell down and was further beaten, while injuries were also inflicted upon the sister in-law of the complainant. It is alleged that some of the accused, inclu present petitioner, caught hold of the complainant and assaulted him. The injured were later taken to Civil Hospital, Fazilka, where Budh Parkash was declared dead, and on the basis of these allegations, the present FIR was registered. 3. Learned unexplained delay of one day in lodging the FIR, which renders the prosecution story doubtful. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated along with several other persons due to a l course and that no specific role has been attributed to him in the alleged occurrence. Counsel further submits that as per the Chemical Examiner’s report, the cause of death of the deceased was found to be congestiv during subsequent inquiry it was revealed that the deceased suffered a sudden heart attack during a minor altercation between the parties. It is argued that a number of co-accused have already been found innocent during investigation, probabilizes the false implication of the petitioner. It is thus contended that there is no direct evidence against the petitioner and he has been unnecessarily nominated in the present case. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the anticipa the ground that there are specific and serious allegations against the petitioner. It is submitted that although as per the opinion of the Board of Doctors, the cause of death of the deceased has been opined to be congestive heart occurrence in question admittedly took place and immediately thereafter the deceased died. It is argued that the question as to whether the heart attack was triggered on account of the injuries sustained and the occurrence that had taken -2025 (O&M) fell down and was further beaten, while injuries were also inflicted upon the sister law of the complainant. It is alleged that some of the accused, inclu present petitioner, caught hold of the complainant and assaulted him. The injured were later taken to Civil Hospital, Fazilka, where Budh Parkash was declared dead, and on the basis of these allegations, the present FIR was registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is an unexplained delay of one day in lodging the FIR, which renders the prosecution story doubtful. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated along with several other persons due to a long-standing dispute regarding the water course and that no specific role has been attributed to him in the alleged occurrence. Counsel further submits that as per the Chemical Examiner’s report, the cause of death of the deceased was found to be congestiv during subsequent inquiry it was revealed that the deceased suffered a sudden heart attack during a minor altercation between the parties. It is argued that a number of accused have already been found innocent during investigation, probabilizes the false implication of the petitioner. It is thus contended that there is no direct evidence against the petitioner and he has been unnecessarily nominated in the present case. Learned State counsel has opposed the anticipa the ground that there are specific and serious allegations against the petitioner. It is submitted that although as per the opinion of the Board of Doctors, the cause of death of the deceased has been opined to be congestive heart occurrence in question admittedly took place and immediately thereafter the deceased died. It is argued that the question as to whether the heart attack was triggered on account of the injuries sustained and the occurrence that had taken -2- fell down and was further beaten, while injuries were also inflicted upon the sister law of the complainant. It is alleged that some of the accused, including the present petitioner, caught hold of the complainant and assaulted him. The injured were later taken to Civil Hospital, Fazilka, where Budh Parkash was declared dead, and on the basis of these allegations, the present FIR was registered. counsel for the petitioner contends that there is an unexplained delay of one day in lodging the FIR, which renders the prosecution story doubtful. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated along standing dispute regarding the water course and that no specific role has been attributed to him in the alleged occurrence. Counsel further submits that as per the Chemical Examiner’s report, the cause of death of the deceased was found to be congestive heart failure, and during subsequent inquiry it was revealed that the deceased suffered a sudden heart attack during a minor altercation between the parties. It is argued that a number of accused have already been found innocent during investigation, which further probabilizes the false implication of the petitioner. It is thus contended that there is no direct evidence against the petitioner and he has been unnecessarily nominated Learned State counsel has opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that there are specific and serious allegations against the petitioner. It is submitted that although as per the opinion of the Board of Doctors, the cause of death of the deceased has been opined to be congestive heart failure, yet the occurrence in question admittedly took place and immediately thereafter the deceased died. It is argued that the question as to whether the heart attack was triggered on account of the injuries sustained and the occurrence that had taken fell down and was further beaten, while injuries were also inflicted upon the sister- ding the present petitioner, caught hold of the complainant and assaulted him. The injured were later taken to Civil Hospital, Fazilka, where Budh Parkash was declared dead, counsel for the petitioner contends that there is an unexplained delay of one day in lodging the FIR, which renders the prosecution story doubtful. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated along standing dispute regarding the water course and that no specific role has been attributed to him in the alleged occurrence. Counsel further submits that as per the Chemical Examiner’s report, e heart failure, and during subsequent inquiry it was revealed that the deceased suffered a sudden heart attack during a minor altercation between the parties. It is argued that a number of which further probabilizes the false implication of the petitioner. It is thus contended that there is no direct evidence against the petitioner and he has been unnecessarily nominated tory bail application on the ground that there are specific and serious allegations against the petitioner. It is submitted that although as per the opinion of the Board of Doctors, the cause of failure, yet the occurrence in question admittedly took place and immediately thereafter the deceased died. It is argued that the question as to whether the heart attack was triggered on account of the injuries sustained and the occurrence that had taken TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.26 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-69038- place just prior to the death is a matter to be adjudicated during trial. State counsel further submits that a specific role has been attributed to the petitioner, namely that he caught hold of the complainant, threw him on the ground, started beating him and also prevented Budh Singh from lifting him up. It is contended that material witnesses are yet to be examined and the weapon allegedly used is yet to be recovered. Therefore, keeping in view the gravity of the allegations and the stage of the investigat bail. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court is of the considered view that no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Even if, for records the cause of death as heart attack, the circumstances leading to such heart attack are required to be examined during the course of trial. The prosecution version specifically alleges th petitioner actively participated and a definite role has been attributed to him of catching hold of the complainant, throwing him on the ground and assaulting him, besides preventing another person from rescuin injuries sustained during the occurrence had a direct nexus with the cardiac failure is a matter to be determined on appreciation of evidence at trial. 6. At this stage, in view of the specific allegations and the fac investigation is still underway and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is stated to be required, this Court does not find it appropriate to extend the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail bail petition is dismissed. -2025 (O&M) lace just prior to the death is a matter to be adjudicated during trial. State counsel further submits that a specific role has been attributed to the petitioner, namely that he caught hold of the complainant, threw him on the ground, started beating him nd also prevented Budh Singh from lifting him up. It is contended that material witnesses are yet to be examined and the weapon allegedly used is yet to be recovered. Therefore, keeping in view the gravity of the allegations and the stage of the investigation, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court is of the considered view that no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Even if, for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that the medical opinion records the cause of death as heart attack, the circumstances leading to such heart attack are required to be examined during the course of trial. The prosecution version specifically alleges that an occurrence had taken place in which the petitioner actively participated and a definite role has been attributed to him of catching hold of the complainant, throwing him on the ground and assaulting him, besides preventing another person from rescuing the victim. Whether the stress and injuries sustained during the occurrence had a direct nexus with the cardiac failure is a matter to be determined on appreciation of evidence at trial. At this stage, in view of the specific allegations and the fac investigation is still underway and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is stated to be required, this Court does not find it appropriate to extend the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present anticipatory is dismissed. -3- lace just prior to the death is a matter to be adjudicated during trial. State counsel further submits that a specific role has been attributed to the petitioner, namely that he caught hold of the complainant, threw him on the ground, started beating him nd also prevented Budh Singh from lifting him up. It is contended that material witnesses are yet to be examined and the weapon allegedly used is yet to be recovered. Therefore, keeping in view the gravity of the allegations and the stage ion, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court is of the considered view that no case for grant of anticipatory bail is the sake of arguments, it is assumed that the medical opinion records the cause of death as heart attack, the circumstances leading to such heart attack are required to be examined during the course of trial. The prosecution at an occurrence had taken place in which the petitioner actively participated and a definite role has been attributed to him of catching hold of the complainant, throwing him on the ground and assaulting him, g the victim. Whether the stress and injuries sustained during the occurrence had a direct nexus with the cardiac failure is a matter to be determined on appreciation of evidence at trial. At this stage, in view of the specific allegations and the fact that investigation is still underway and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is stated to be required, this Court does not find it appropriate to extend the extraordinary . Accordingly, the present anticipatory lace just prior to the death is a matter to be adjudicated during trial. State counsel further submits that a specific role has been attributed to the petitioner, namely that he caught hold of the complainant, threw him on the ground, started beating him nd also prevented Budh Singh from lifting him up. It is contended that material witnesses are yet to be examined and the weapon allegedly used is yet to be recovered. Therefore, keeping in view the gravity of the allegations and the stage ion, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court is of the considered view that no case for grant of anticipatory bail is the sake of arguments, it is assumed that the medical opinion records the cause of death as heart attack, the circumstances leading to such heart attack are required to be examined during the course of trial. The prosecution at an occurrence had taken place in which the petitioner actively participated and a definite role has been attributed to him of catching hold of the complainant, throwing him on the ground and assaulting him, g the victim. Whether the stress and injuries sustained during the occurrence had a direct nexus with the cardiac failure t that investigation is still underway and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is stated to be required, this Court does not find it appropriate to extend the extraordinary . Accordingly, the present anticipatory TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.26 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-69038- 7. However, it is clarified that any observation made herein is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition expression on the merits of the case 8. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. February 26, 202 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) However, it is clarified that any observation made herein is only for f deciding the present petition expression on the merits of the case at trial. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- However, it is clarified that any observation made herein is only for and shall not be construed as an Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No However, it is clarified that any observation made herein is only for and shall not be construed as an TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.26 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document