Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2023 DAILYLAW 5470 (PNJ)

ARSHPREET SINGH @ GOGI v. STATE OF PUNJAB

CRM-M/11284/2026 · 2026-05-29

Rupinderjit Chahal

body2023

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-11284 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 201(2) ARSHPREET SINGH @ GOGI STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Zorawar Singh Chauhan, 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 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 191(3), 19 Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station PAU, District Ludhiana 2. On the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of in case FIR No.134 dated 25.10.2025 registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 191(3), 190 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station PAU, District Ludhiana. petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he 11284-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision: ARSHPREET SINGH @ GOGI Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Zorawar Singh Chauhan, 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.134 dated 25.10.2025 registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 191(3), 190 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station PAU, District Ludhiana On 21.05.2026, the following order “Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.134 dated 25.10.2025 registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 191(3), 190 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station PAU, District Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the petitio petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-11284-2026 Date of decision: 29.05.2026 ….Petitioner ....Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Advocate 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.134 dated 25.10.2025 registered under 0 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station PAU, District Ludhiana. following order was passed by this Court: - Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.134 dated 25.10.2025 registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 191(3), 190 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station PAU, District Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he ….Petitioner ....Respondent Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the petitioner FIR No.134 dated 25.10.2025 registered under 0 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.134 dated 25.10.2025 registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 191(3), 190 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya ner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he GURPREET 2026.05.29 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-11284 has no concern with the said incident. He argued that the alleged occurrence took place on 19.10.2025 but the FIR in question was registered on 25.10.2025 i.e. aft days, casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. He argued that in fact, the injuries sustained by the complainant are self inflicted. He further argued that the petitioner was intentionally named in the FIR only on the b concrete evidence. He further argued that if the contents of the FIR are taken to be true, even then no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner. He further argued that the complainant never appeared before medica examination which substantiates the falsity of the FIR. He further argued that Section 115(2) of BNS was added by the prosecution only to make the offence graver. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in a recovery is submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. the status report in the matter and while referring to the same, she has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature as he was speci However, she has not controverted the fact that the petitioner is a first time offender as he is not involved in any other case. investigation within a w when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, he shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/ 11284-2026 2 has no concern with the said incident. He argued that the alleged occurrence took place on 19.10.2025 but the FIR in question was registered on 25.10.2025 i.e. aft days, casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. He argued that in fact, the injuries sustained by the complainant are self inflicted. He further argued that the petitioner was intentionally named in the FIR only on the b concrete evidence. He further argued that if the contents of the FIR are taken to be true, even then no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner. He further argued that the complainant never appeared before medica examination which substantiates the falsity of the FIR. He further argued that Section 115(2) of BNS was added by the prosecution only to make the offence graver. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in a recovery is to be effected from him. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. On the other hand, learned Stat the status report in the matter and while referring to the same, she has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature as he was speci However, she has not controverted the fact that the petitioner is a first time offender as he is not involved in any other case. Adjourned to 29.05.2026. In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation within a week from today and would appear as and when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, he shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner has no concern with the said incident. He argued that the alleged occurrence took place on 19.10.2025 but the FIR in question was registered on 25.10.2025 i.e. after an unexplained delay of 06 days, casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. He argued that in fact, the injuries sustained by the complainant are self inflicted. He further argued that the petitioner was intentionally named in the FIR only on the basis of suspicion without any concrete evidence. He further argued that if the contents of the FIR are taken to be true, even then no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner. He further argued that the complainant never appeared before medical board for medical examination which substantiates the falsity of the FIR. He further argued that Section 115(2) of BNS was added by the prosecution only to make the offence graver. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case and no to be effected from him. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the On the other hand, learned State counsel has already filed the status report in the matter and while referring to the same, she has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature as he was specifically named in the FIR. However, she has not controverted the fact that the petitioner is a first time offender as he is not involved in any other case. In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join eek from today and would appear as and when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, he shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the Investigating Officer. The petitioner has no concern with the said incident. He argued that the alleged occurrence took place on 19.10.2025 but the FIR in question was er an unexplained delay of 06 days, casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. He argued that in fact, the injuries sustained by the complainant are self inflicted. He further argued that the petitioner was intentionally asis of suspicion without any concrete evidence. He further argued that if the contents of the FIR are taken to be true, even then no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner. He further argued that the l board for medical examination which substantiates the falsity of the FIR. He further argued that Section 115(2) of BNS was added by the prosecution only to make the offence graver. Moreover, the petitioner has ny other case and no to be effected from him. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the e counsel has already filed the status report in the matter and while referring to the same, she has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are fically named in the FIR. However, she has not controverted the fact that the petitioner is In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join eek from today and would appear as and when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, he shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the Investigating Officer. The petitioner GURPREET 2026.05.29 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-11284 shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. 3. L the order dated investigation. 4. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions Babandeep Singh, investigation and 5. In view of the s interim order dated petitioner shall continue to join investigation, as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions a Section 482(2) of the BNSS 29.05.2026 Gurpreet 11284-2026 3 shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order dated 21.05.2026 passed by this Court, the investigation. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions Babandeep Singh, has submitted that the petitioner ha investigation and is no longer required for further investigation. In view of the statement made by learned State counsel, the interim order dated 21.05.2026 passed by 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 a Section 482(2) of the BNSS. i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section earned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from HC has submitted that the petitioner has joined the no longer required for further investigation. tatement made by learned State counsel, the passed by 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 (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section earned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of joined the from HC joined the tatement made by learned State counsel, the passed by this Court, is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join investigation, as and when called by the s provided under (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) GURPREET 2026.05.29 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.