CRM-M-28501- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT HARBINDER SINGH AND STATE OF PUNJAB 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full pronounced 5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment and reasons thereof. CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Ms. Sagarika, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate, Mr. Jeevanjot S. Kang, Advocate for the complainant **** MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. The Section 482 of Bharatiya for grant of anticipatory registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 191(3), 190 of 2023 (for short “BNS”) -2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH HARBINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER Versus PUNJAB The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment and reasons thereof. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. APS Deol, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sagarika, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate, Mr. Jeevanjot S. Kang, Advocate for the complainant **** MANISHA BATRA, J. The instant petition has been filed of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No. registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 191(3), 190 of t “BNS”) at Police Station Sadar, Faridkot. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-28501-2026 (O&M) ... Petitioners ...Respondent The date when the judgment is reserved 27.05.2026 The date when the judgment is pronounced 29.05.2026 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 29.05.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is judgment is Full The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA APS Deol, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sagarika, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jeevanjot S. Kang, Advocate for the complainant jointly by the petitioners under Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) in case arising out of FIR No.124 dated 29.04.2026 registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 191(3), 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, at Police Station Sadar, Faridkot. s ...Respondent under Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) 124 dated 29.04.2026 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.29 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28501- 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Darshan Singh, alle he was working in his field field, his brother Ranjit Singh was working. Suddenly, the petitioners accompanied by co tractor and intercepted them. The petitioner No.1 was holdin whereas petitioner No.2 was carrying a pistol with him. They made an exhortation and then pushed Ranjit Singh asked co-accused Gurmeet Singh to drive a tractor and to teach the complainant a lesson. Gurmeet Singh started the tractor and with intent to kill, drove it with a crowbar. After hitting by the crowbar, between the tractor and crowbar. The run him over with the trac the ground. The petitioners again made an exhortation that the complainant should not be left alive and on their asking accused Gurtej Singh hit the complainant with a crush him under the tractor. On clamour being raised, the family members of the complainant and other persons reached there and then the assailants fled away. His brother was also injured 3. After registration of FI initiated and are underway. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioner applications for grant of anticipator -2026 (O&M) 2 The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Darshan Singh, alle he was working in his field alongwith his son Surinder Singh. In the adjoining field, his brother Ranjit Singh was working. Suddenly, the petitioners accompanied by co-accused reached there being armed with weapons on a tractor and intercepted them. The petitioner No.1 was holdin whereas petitioner No.2 was carrying a pistol with him. They made an exhortation and then pushed Ranjit Singh, brother of the complainant aside and accused Gurmeet Singh to drive a tractor and to teach the complainant . Gurmeet Singh started the tractor and with intent to kill, drove it with After hitting by the crowbar, complainant between the tractor and crowbar. Thereafter, accused Gurmeet Singh tried t run him over with the tractor. His knee was badly injured and he had fallen on The petitioners again made an exhortation that the complainant should not be left alive and on their asking accused Gurtej Singh hit the complainant with a gandasa, whereas accused Gurmeet crush him under the tractor. On clamour being raised, the family members of the complainant and other persons reached there and then the assailants fled away. His brother was also injured in the incident. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioner applications for grant of anticipatory bail which w The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Darshan Singh, alleging therein that on 25.04.2026 alongwith his son Surinder Singh. In the adjoining field, his brother Ranjit Singh was working. Suddenly, the petitioners there being armed with weapons on a tractor and intercepted them. The petitioner No.1 was holding dang in his hand, whereas petitioner No.2 was carrying a pistol with him. They made an brother of the complainant aside and accused Gurmeet Singh to drive a tractor and to teach the complainant . Gurmeet Singh started the tractor and with intent to kill, drove it with complainant’s brother got stuck in accused Gurmeet Singh tried to tor. His knee was badly injured and he had fallen on The petitioners again made an exhortation that the complainant should not be left alive and on their asking accused Gurtej Singh hit the whereas accused Gurmeet Singh again tried to crush him under the tractor. On clamour being raised, the family members of the complainant and other persons reached there and then the assailants fled the incident. R, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners moved bail which were dismissed by a common The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement ging therein that on 25.04.2026 alongwith his son Surinder Singh. In the adjoining field, his brother Ranjit Singh was working. Suddenly, the petitioners there being armed with weapons on a , whereas petitioner No.2 was carrying a pistol with him. They made an brother of the complainant aside and accused Gurmeet Singh to drive a tractor and to teach the complainant . Gurmeet Singh started the tractor and with intent to kill, drove it with in o tor. His knee was badly injured and he had fallen on The petitioners again made an exhortation that the complainant should not be left alive and on their asking accused Gurtej Singh hit the Singh again tried to crush him under the tractor. On clamour being raised, the family members of the complainant and other persons reached there and then the assailants fled R, investigation proceedings have been moved dismissed by a common AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.29 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28501- order dated 11.05.2026 passed by the Court of Learned Sessions Faridkot. 4. It is argued by learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is a case of version and cross version. The dispute was between the co complainant party and the petitioners name of the petitioner No.1 had not been correctly mentioned in the FIR. No specific overt act has been attributed to them. The accused Gurmeet also sustained injuries in the same in 39 and 40 have been registered on 29.04.2026. It was the complainant who had blocked the passage of the land of Gurmeet Singh by putting big stones on his way. On a complaint made by Gurmeet Singh, the petitioners being former Sarpanches and other respectable members of the village had gone to the fields of Gurmeet Singh for amicably who had initiated the assault. The injuries non-vital part of the b BNS, as they are simple in nature. Rather the injuries sustained by the co accused Gurmeet Singh are serious in nature. The allegations against the petitioners are of making exhortations only. Th old person. The injury attributed to the petitioner No.1 on the person of Ranjit Singh, injured has been opined to be simple in nature. The petitioners are ready to join investigation. Therefore, custodial interrogation i -2026 (O&M) 3 order dated 11.05.2026 passed by the Court of Learned Sessions It is argued by learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is a case of version and cross version. The dispute was between the co-accused Gurmeet Singh and the complainant party and the petitioners had nothing to do with the same. Even the name of the petitioner No.1 had not been correctly mentioned in the FIR. No specific overt act has been attributed to them. The accused Gurmeet also sustained injuries in the same incident and on his s 39 and 40 have been registered on 29.04.2026. It was the complainant who had blocked the passage of the land of Gurmeet Singh by putting big stones on his way. On a complaint made by Gurmeet Singh, the petitioners being former panches and other respectable members of the village had gone to the fields of Gurmeet Singh for amicably resolving the matter. It was the complainant itiated the assault. The injuries sustained by the complainant vital part of the body and do not fall within the ambit of Section 118(2) of they are simple in nature. Rather the injuries sustained by the co accused Gurmeet Singh are serious in nature. The allegations against the petitioners are of making exhortations only. Th old person. The injury attributed to the petitioner No.1 on the person of Ranjit injured has been opined to be simple in nature. The petitioners are ready to join investigation. Therefore, custodial interrogation i order dated 11.05.2026 passed by the Court of Learned Sessions Judge, It is argued by learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is a case of version and cross- accused Gurmeet Singh and the had nothing to do with the same. Even the name of the petitioner No.1 had not been correctly mentioned in the FIR. No specific overt act has been attributed to them. The accused Gurmeet Singh had cident and on his statement cross DDR Nos. 39 and 40 have been registered on 29.04.2026. It was the complainant who had blocked the passage of the land of Gurmeet Singh by putting big stones on his way. On a complaint made by Gurmeet Singh, the petitioners being former panches and other respectable members of the village had gone to the fields solving the matter. It was the complainant sustained by the complainant are on ody and do not fall within the ambit of Section 118(2) of they are simple in nature. Rather the injuries sustained by the co- accused Gurmeet Singh are serious in nature. The allegations against the petitioners are of making exhortations only. The petitioner No.1 is a 69 years old person. The injury attributed to the petitioner No.1 on the person of Ranjit injured has been opined to be simple in nature. The petitioners are ready to join investigation. Therefore, custodial interrogation is not required. No Judge, It is argued by learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that they - accused Gurmeet Singh and the had nothing to do with the same. Even the name of the petitioner No.1 had not been correctly mentioned in the FIR. No had cross DDR Nos. 39 and 40 have been registered on 29.04.2026. It was the complainant who had blocked the passage of the land of Gurmeet Singh by putting big stones on his way. On a complaint made by Gurmeet Singh, the petitioners being former panches and other respectable members of the village had gone to the fields solving the matter. It was the complainant on ody and do not fall within the ambit of Section 118(2) of - accused Gurmeet Singh are serious in nature. The allegations against the 69 years old person. The injury attributed to the petitioner No.1 on the person of Ranjit injured has been opined to be simple in nature. The petitioners are ready s not required. No AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.29 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28501- recovery is to be effected from them. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel the complainant has vehemently argued that the allegations a petitioners are quite serious in nature. By forming membership of an unlawful assembly with the co grievous injuries on the person of the victim. The injury No.1 Darshan Singh had sustained fractures on right distal end femur. His left ankle was dislocated and has been reduced. He has undergone debridement and is still under treatment. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners is must. There is no exceptional or extra to them. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 7. The petit with the co-accused are alleged to have voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries to the complainant Darshan Singh and his brother Ranjit Singh. The photographs of reveal that his left ankle had almost amputated and he had suffered fractures. The allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature. They are the precipitators of the crime as firstly they made exhortations to open the victims and then themselves participated in the same. The victims have -2026 (O&M) 4 recovery is to be effected from them. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. Per contra, learned State counsel with the complainant has vehemently argued that the allegations a are quite serious in nature. By forming membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused they had voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries on the person of the victim. The injury No.1 Darshan Singh fractures on right distal end femur. His left ankle was dislocated and has been reduced. He has undergone debridement and is still under treatment. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners is must. There is no exceptional or extra-ordinary circumstance to extend benefit of anticipatory bail to them. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. The petitioners by forming membership of an unlawful assembly accused are alleged to have voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries to the complainant Darshan Singh and his brother Ranjit Singh. The photographs of the victim Darshan Singh that his left ankle had almost amputated and he had suffered fractures. The allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature. They are the precipitators of the crime as firstly they made exhortations to open the victims and then themselves participated in the same. The victims have recovery is to be effected from them. It is, therefore, argued that the petition with learned Senior counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the allegations against the are quite serious in nature. By forming membership of an unlawful accused they had voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries on the person of the victim. The injury No.1 Darshan Singh fractures on right distal end femur. His left ankle was dislocated and has been reduced. He has undergone debridement and is still under treatment. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners is must. There is no mstance to extend benefit of anticipatory bail to them. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel ioners by forming membership of an unlawful assembly accused are alleged to have voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries to the complainant Darshan Singh and his brother Ranjit Singh. the victim Darshan Singh are shown to this Court which that his left ankle had almost amputated and he had suffered fractures. The allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature. They are the precipitators of the crime as firstly they made exhortations to open assault upon the victims and then themselves participated in the same. The victims have recovery is to be effected from them. It is, therefore, argued that the petition learned Senior counsel for gainst the are quite serious in nature. By forming membership of an unlawful accused they had voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries on the person of the victim. The injury No.1 Darshan Singh fractures on right distal end femur. His left ankle was dislocated and has been reduced. He has undergone debridement and is still under treatment. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners is must. There is no mstance to extend benefit of anticipatory bail This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel ioners by forming membership of an unlawful assembly accused are alleged to have voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries to the complainant Darshan Singh and his brother Ranjit Singh. which that his left ankle had almost amputated and he had suffered fractures. The allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature. They are the assault upon the victims and then themselves participated in the same. The victims have AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.29 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28501- suffered injuries which appear to be quite proposition of law that grant of bail is a discretionary relief to be granted or denied based on specific facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be any exhaustive parameter set out for considering the application for grant of bail. The factors such as nature of accusations, severity of punishment if the accusations entail, c accusations are to be seen. That apart reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or threatening the material witnesses is also to be weighed. Frivolity of prosecution should also be considered a genuineness that has to be considered in the matter of grant of bail. well settled propos exercised in exceptional and sparing circumstances not in a ro exceptional circumstance appears to have been made out in this case. is at its nascent stage. to the Investigating Agency, that shall leave many glaring loopholes and thereby adversely effecting the investigation. For conducting effective investigation so as to avoid any loopholes in the same, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. 8. Taking into consideration meaning to make any comment on the merit of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does deserve to be allowed. Accordingly the same is dismissed. -2026 (O&M) 5 suffered injuries which appear to be quite seriou proposition of law that grant of bail is a discretionary relief to be granted or d based on specific facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be any exhaustive parameter set out for considering the application for grant of bail. The factors such as nature of accusations, severity of punishment if the accusations entail, conviction and nature of evidence in support of the accusations are to be seen. That apart reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or threatening the material witnesses is also to be weighed. Frivolity of prosecution should also be considered a genuineness that has to be considered in the matter of grant of bail. well settled proposition of law that powers for gr exercised in exceptional and sparing circumstances not in a ro exceptional circumstance appears to have been made out in this case. is at its nascent stage. In case custodial interrogation of the petitioner is denied to the Investigating Agency, that shall leave many glaring loopholes and thereby adversely effecting the investigation. For conducting effective investigation so as to avoid any loopholes in the same, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts but witho meaning to make any comment on the merit of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does deserve to be allowed. Accordingly the same is dismissed. seriou in nature. It is well settled proposition of law that grant of bail is a discretionary relief to be granted or d based on specific facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be any exhaustive parameter set out for considering the application for grant of bail. The factors such as nature of accusations, severity of punishment if the onviction and nature of evidence in support of the accusations are to be seen. That apart reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or threatening the material witnesses is also to be weighed. Frivolity of prosecution should also be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that has to be considered in the matter of grant of bail. It is also ition of law that powers for grant of pre-arrest bail are to be exercised in exceptional and sparing circumstances not in a routine manner. No exceptional circumstance appears to have been made out in this case. The case In case custodial interrogation of the petitioner is denied to the Investigating Agency, that shall leave many glaring loopholes and gaps, thereby adversely effecting the investigation. For conducting effective investigation so as to avoid any loopholes in the same, the custodial above discussed facts but without meaning to make any comment on the merit of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does deserve to be allowed. Accordingly It is well settled proposition of law that grant of bail is a discretionary relief to be granted or d based on specific facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be any exhaustive parameter set out for considering the application for grant of bail. The factors such as nature of accusations, severity of punishment if the onviction and nature of evidence in support of the accusations are to be seen. That apart reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or threatening the material witnesses is also to be weighed. nd it is only the element of also arrest bail are to be utine manner. No The case In case custodial interrogation of the petitioner is denied gaps, thereby adversely effecting the investigation. For conducting effective investigation so as to avoid any loopholes in the same, the custodial ut meaning to make any comment on the merit of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does deserve to be allowed. Accordingly AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.29 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28501- 9. Since the main petition has been any, is rendered infructuous. 29.05.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 6 Since the main petition has been dismissed, any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No dismissed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No pending application, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.29 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.