Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2023 DAILYLAW 4873 (PNJ)

HARSANGEET SINGH ALIAS HARRY v. STATE OF PUNJAB

CRM-M/6303/2026 · 2026-03-06

Rupinderjit Chahal

body2023

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-6303 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 209 HARSANGEET SINGH ALIAS HARRY STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- M for the petitioner. Mr. Amrit Pal Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab ***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) 1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case Sections 118(1), 115(2) and 3(5) of the B Colony, Bathinda, District Bathinda, Punjab 2. On ordinate bench of this Court Bharatiya Nagarik Cr.P.C.), for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 296 dated 25.11.2025, registered under Sections 118(1), 115(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Canal Colony, Bathinda, Distr 6303-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision: HARSANGEET SINGH ALIAS HARRY Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Himanshu Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amrit Pal Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab ***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 296 dated 25.11.2025, registered under Sections 118(1), 115(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Canal Colony, Bathinda, District Bathinda, Punjab. On 12.02.2026, the following order ordinate bench of this Court: - “1. This is the first petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 296 dated 25.11.2025, registered under Sections 118(1), 115(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Canal Colony, Bathinda, District Bathinda, Punjab. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-6303-2026 Date of decision: 06.03.2026 ….Petitioner ....Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Amrit Pal Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner FIR No. 296 dated 25.11.2025, registered under NS, 2023, at Police Station Canal following order was passed by the co- 1. This is the first petition filed under Section 482 of the Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 296 dated 25.11.2025, registered under Sections 118(1), 115(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Canal ict Bathinda, Punjab. ….Petitioner ....Respondent Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner FIR No. 296 dated 25.11.2025, registered under NS, 2023, at Police Station Canal - 1. This is the first petition filed under Section 482 of the Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 296 dated 25.11.2025, registered under Sections 118(1), 115(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Canal GURPREET 2026.03.10 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-6303 been registered on the statement of Rohit Singh, who alleged that on 22.11.2025 at about 7:30 p.m., while he was returning home on his Activa scooter and reached near Street N Basti, Bobby along with Harsangeet Singh @ Harry son of Baljit Singh, was standing there armed with a Kirch. It is alleged that both of them started giving beatings to him. The petitioner is specifically attributed a Kirch blow on the lef of the neck of the complainant, whereas co fist and kick blows on his back and right side flank. On raising alarm, both the assailants fled from the spot. The complainant was medically examined and injuries on the c vital parts of the body, were noted. The petitioner has been specifically named in the first version recorded by the police. It is further the case of the prosecution that recovery of the weapon used in the interrogation of the petitioner is stated to be necessary for proper investigation of the case. petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is su the time of the alleged occurrence and has no motive to commit the alleged offence. It is further contended that the injuries attributed to the petitioner are simple and superficial in nature and at best attra IPC/118(1) BNS. It is also argued that there is delay in registration of the FIR, which creates doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution version. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and his cust required. The petitioner is stated to be ready and willing to join the investigation and co report on behalf of the respondent record. He has opposed the bail application on the ground that 6303-2026 2 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the present FIR has been registered on the statement of Rohit Singh, who alleged that on 22.11.2025 at about 7:30 p.m., while he was returning home on his Activa scooter and reached near Street N Basti, Bobby along with Harsangeet Singh @ Harry son of Baljit Singh, was standing there armed with a Kirch. It is alleged that both of them started giving beatings to him. The petitioner is specifically attributed a Kirch blow on the lef of the neck of the complainant, whereas co fist and kick blows on his back and right side flank. On raising alarm, both the assailants fled from the spot. The complainant was medically examined and injuries on the c vital parts of the body, were noted. The petitioner has been specifically named in the first version recorded by the police. It is further the case of the prosecution that recovery of the weapon used in the occurrence is yet to be effec interrogation of the petitioner is stated to be necessary for proper investigation of the case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that he was not present at the spot at the time of the alleged occurrence and has no motive to commit the alleged offence. It is further contended that the injuries attributed to the petitioner are simple and superficial in nature and at best attract the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC/118(1) BNS. It is also argued that there is delay in registration of the FIR, which creates doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution version. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and his cust required. The petitioner is stated to be ready and willing to join the investigation and co-operate with the investigating agency. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel has filed a status report on behalf of the respondent record. He has opposed the bail application on the ground that 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the present FIR has been registered on the statement of Rohit Singh, who alleged that on 22.11.2025 at about 7:30 p.m., while he was returning home on his Activa scooter and reached near Street No. 7 of Lal Singh Basti, Bobby along with Harsangeet Singh @ Harry son of Baljit Singh, was standing there armed with a Kirch. It is alleged that both of them started giving beatings to him. The petitioner is specifically attributed a Kirch blow on the left cheek and left side of the neck of the complainant, whereas co-accused Bobby gave fist and kick blows on his back and right side flank. On raising alarm, both the assailants fled from the spot. The complainant was medically examined and injuries on the cheek and neck, i.e. vital parts of the body, were noted. The petitioner has been specifically named in the first version recorded by the police. It is further the case of the prosecution that recovery of the weapon occurrence is yet to be effected and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is stated to be necessary for 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the bmitted that he was not present at the spot at the time of the alleged occurrence and has no motive to commit the alleged offence. It is further contended that the injuries attributed to the petitioner are simple and superficial in nature ct the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC/118(1) BNS. It is also argued that there is delay in registration of the FIR, which creates doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution version. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and his custodial interrogation is not required. The petitioner is stated to be ready and willing to join operate with the investigating agency. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel has filed a status report on behalf of the respondent-State and the same is taken on record. He has opposed the bail application on the ground that 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the present FIR has been registered on the statement of Rohit Singh, who alleged that on 22.11.2025 at about 7:30 p.m., while he was returning home o. 7 of Lal Singh Basti, Bobby along with Harsangeet Singh @ Harry son of Baljit Singh, was standing there armed with a Kirch. It is alleged that both of them started giving beatings to him. The petitioner is t cheek and left side accused Bobby gave fist and kick blows on his back and right side flank. On raising alarm, both the assailants fled from the spot. The complainant heek and neck, i.e. vital parts of the body, were noted. The petitioner has been specifically named in the first version recorded by the police. It is further the case of the prosecution that recovery of the weapon ted and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is stated to be necessary for 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the bmitted that he was not present at the spot at the time of the alleged occurrence and has no motive to commit the alleged offence. It is further contended that the injuries attributed to the petitioner are simple and superficial in nature ct the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC/118(1) BNS. It is also argued that there is delay in registration of the FIR, which creates doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution version. Nothing is to be recovered odial interrogation is not required. The petitioner is stated to be ready and willing to join 4. Per contra, learned State counsel has filed a status nd the same is taken on record. He has opposed the bail application on the ground that GURPREET 2026.03.10 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-6303 the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR and there are clear allegations that he inflicted injuries with a sharp weapon on the cheek and neck of the c vital parts of the body. It is submitted that the offence is serious in nature and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation and recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence. On has been made for dismissal of the anticipatory bail. perused the record. case, it is noticed that only simple injuries h to the petitioner, which prima facie invite the offence under Section 324 IPC/118(1) of BNS. The investigation is still at a nascent stage and nothing substantial is stated to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner has express to join the investigation and there is nothing on record to show that he is likely to abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence. In such circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind bars at this interim bail subject to his joining investigation and reporting to the Investigating Officer concerned within one week from today, on furnishing of personal/security bonds to the satisfac Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order dated petitioner has joined the investigation. 6303-2026 3 the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR and there are clear allegations that he inflicted injuries with a sharp weapon on the cheek and neck of the c vital parts of the body. It is submitted that the offence is serious in nature and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation and recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence. On has been made for dismissal of the anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. At this stage, without commenting upon the merits of the case, it is noticed that only simple injuries h to the petitioner, which prima facie invite the offence under Section 324 IPC/118(1) of BNS. The investigation is still at a nascent stage and nothing substantial is stated to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner has express to join the investigation and there is nothing on record to show that he is likely to abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence. In such circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind bars at this 7. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on interim bail subject to his joining investigation and reporting to the Investigating Officer concerned within one week from today, on furnishing of personal/security bonds to the satisfac Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. 8.List on 06.03.2026.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the co-ordinate bench of joined the investigation. the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR and there are clear allegations that he inflicted injuries with a sharp-edged weapon on the cheek and neck of the complainant, which are vital parts of the body. It is submitted that the offence is serious in nature and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation and recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence. On these grounds, prayer has been made for dismissal of the anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and 6. At this stage, without commenting upon the merits of the case, it is noticed that only simple injuries have been attributed to the petitioner, which prima facie invite the offence under Section 324 IPC/118(1) of BNS. The investigation is still at a nascent stage and nothing substantial is stated to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner has expressed his willingness to join the investigation and there is nothing on record to show that he is likely to abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence. In such circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind bars at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on interim bail subject to his joining investigation and reporting to the Investigating Officer concerned within one week from today, on furnishing of personal/security bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of ordinate bench of this Court, the the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR and there edged omplainant, which are vital parts of the body. It is submitted that the offence is serious in nature and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation and recovery of the weapon these grounds, prayer 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and 6. At this stage, without commenting upon the merits of the ave been attributed to the petitioner, which prima facie invite the offence under Section 324 IPC/118(1) of BNS. The investigation is still at a nascent stage and nothing substantial is stated to be recovered ed his willingness to join the investigation and there is nothing on record to show that he is likely to abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence. In such circumstances, no useful purpose would be 7. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on interim bail subject to his joining investigation and reporting to the Investigating Officer concerned within one week from today, tion of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of this Court, the GURPREET 2026.03.10 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-6303 4. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions the petitioner ha investigation. 5. In view of the statement made by learned State counsel, the interim order dated is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join investigation, as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of the BNSS 06.03.2026 Gurpreet 6303-2026 4 Learned counsel for the State, on instructions the petitioner has joined the investigation and In view of the statement made by learned State counsel, the interim order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the co is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join investigation, as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of the BNSS i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No Learned counsel for the State, on instructions, has submitted that joined the investigation and is no longer required for further In view of the statement made by learned State counsel, the the co-ordinate bench of this Court, is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join investigation, as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No has submitted that no longer required for further In view of the statement made by learned State counsel, the rt, is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join investigation, as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) GURPREET 2026.03.10 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.