Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2023 DAILYLAW 5483 (PNJ)

SANDEEP SINGH ALIAS NINDER v. STATE OF PUNJAB

CRM-M/27458/2026 · 2026-05-29

Rupinderjit Chahal

Transfer Petitionbody2023

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-27458 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Sr.No.208 Sandeep Singh @ Ninder State of Punjab CORAM : Present : RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL 1. BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.179, dated 22.09.2025, registered under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Raman, Distri 2. alongwith co person of complainant with an intention to kill him. Hence, the present FIR. 3. innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner was not present at the spot; the allegations 27458-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.208 Sandeep Singh @ Ninder Versus State of Punjab CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL *** Mr. Jasdev Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amritpal Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab for the respondent(s)-State. *** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL) Prayer in the present petition filed BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.179, dated 22.09.2025, registered under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Raman, District Bathinda. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner alongwith co-accused, armed with pistol, sword etc. caused injuries on the person of complainant with an intention to kill him. Hence, the present FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner was not present at the spot; the allegations IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-27458-2026 Decided on : 29.05.2026 ...... Petitioner ...... Respondent MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Jasdev Singh Brar, Advocate Mr. Amritpal Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab 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.179, dated 22.09.2025, registered under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner accused, armed with pistol, sword etc. caused injuries on the person of complainant with an intention to kill him. Hence, the present FIR. r the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner was not present at the spot; the allegations 2026 Decided on : 29.05.2026 under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.179, dated 22.09.2025, registered under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner accused, armed with pistol, sword etc. caused injuries on the person of complainant with an intention to kill him. Hence, the present FIR. r the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner was not present at the spot; the allegations PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 18.19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-27458 levelled against him are false and he has no concern with t Learned counsel registered against the complainant by the petitioner side. that the petitioner has been implicated in this case only because of previous enmity with the complainant. record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner, and his custodial interrogation is not required. Learned counsel also willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Agency and shall fully cooperate with the investigation. On these grounds, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed. 4. status report already filed, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He contends th complainant with an intention to kill him but the bullet got struck on the front glass and conductor side mirror. He further submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for recovering th weapon. Thus, he prays that the petitioner does not deserve any concession from this Court. 5. perusing the record petitioner are serious in nature. The petitioner fired twice towards the complainant with an intention to kill him. As per the State counsel, the weapon of offence is yet to be recovered, hence there appears prima facie need of a deeper probe for which cus 27458-2026 2 levelled against him are false and he has no concern with t Learned counselcontends that the present FIR is counter registered against the complainant by the petitioner side. that the petitioner has been implicated in this case only because of previous ith the complainant. It is further contended that there is nothing on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner, and his custodial interrogation is not required. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Agency and shall fully cooperate with the investigation. On these grounds, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed. On the other hand, learned State counsel while referring to the status report already filed, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He contends that the petitioner fired twice towards the complainant with an intention to kill him but the bullet got struck on the front glass and conductor side mirror. He further submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for recovering th weapon. Thus, he prays that the petitioner does not deserve any concession from this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record, it is evident that the allegations levelled against the titioner are serious in nature. The petitioner fired twice towards the complainant with an intention to kill him. As per the State counsel, the weapon of offence is yet to be recovered, hence there appears prima facie need of a deeper probe for which custodial interrogation of the petitioner is levelled against him are false and he has no concern with the said offence. contends that the present FIR is counter-blast to the FIR registered against the complainant by the petitioner side.He further contends that the petitioner has been implicated in this case only because of previous It is further contended that there is nothing on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner, and his custodial interrogation is not submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Agency and shall fully cooperate with the investigation. On these grounds, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed. On the other hand, learned State counsel while referring to the status report already filed, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are at the petitioner fired twice towards the complainant with an intention to kill him but the bullet got struck on the front glass and conductor side mirror. He further submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for recovering the offending weapon. Thus, he prays that the petitioner does not deserve any concession Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after , it is evident that the allegations levelled against the titioner are serious in nature. The petitioner fired twice towards the complainant with an intention to kill him. As per the State counsel, the weapon of offence is yet to be recovered, hence there appears prima facie todial interrogation of the petitioner is he said offence. blast to the FIR He further contends that the petitioner has been implicated in this case only because of previous It is further contended that there is nothing on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner, and his custodial interrogation is not submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Agency and shall fully cooperate with the investigation. On On the other hand, learned State counsel while referring to the status report already filed, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are at the petitioner fired twice towards the complainant with an intention to kill him but the bullet got struck on the front glass and conductor side mirror. He further submits that the custodial e offending weapon. Thus, he prays that the petitioner does not deserve any concession Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after , it is evident that the allegations levelled against the titioner are serious in nature. The petitioner fired twice towards the complainant with an intention to kill him. As per the State counsel, the weapon of offence is yet to be recovered, hence there appears prima facie todial interrogation of the petitioner is PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 18.19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-27458 required. This petition for anticipatory bail, it is required to consider the overall nature of offence and accusation against the accused, the manner of oc gravity of offence and the potential impact of granting pre at this stage. Granting anticipatory bail with such allegations, at this preliminary stage, would not be justified as it may affect the course of fair investigati the gravity of the allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation in the matter. 6. grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It would be apposite to refer herein judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharma’, (1997) 7 SCC 187 27458-2026 3 required. This Court is sanguine of the fact that while considering the petition for anticipatory bail, it is required to consider the overall nature of offence and accusation against the accused, the manner of oc gravity of offence and the potential impact of granting pre at this stage. Granting anticipatory bail with such allegations, at this preliminary stage, would not be justified as it may affect the course of fair investigation and undermine and seriousness of the alleged act. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation in the matter. It is befitting to mention here that while consider grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It would be apposite to refer herein judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharma’, (1997) 7 SCC 187, wherein it has been "6. We find, force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation questioning a suspect who is well under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well pr insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, Court is sanguine of the fact that while considering the petition for anticipatory bail, it is required to consider the overall nature of offence and accusation against the accused, the manner of occurrence, the gravity of offence and the potential impact of granting pre-arrest protection, at this stage. Granting anticipatory bail with such allegations, at this preliminary stage, would not be justified as it may affect the course of fair on and undermine and seriousness of the alleged act. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation in the matter. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It would be apposite to refer herein judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘State Vs. Anil , wherein it has been held as under: "6. We find, force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being bjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, Court is sanguine of the fact that while considering the petition for anticipatory bail, it is required to consider the overall nature of currence, the arrest protection, at this stage. Granting anticipatory bail with such allegations, at this preliminary stage, would not be justified as it may affect the course of fair on and undermine and seriousness of the alleged act. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is ing a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It would be apposite ‘State Vs. Anil "6. We find, force in the submission of CBI that custodial oriented than ensconced with a favourable order effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would otected and arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being bjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 18.19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-27458 7. the factual matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner will leave many loose ends, which is not desired. Thus, the present petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. 8. to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. 29.05.202 mamta Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 27458-2026 4 such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders." Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present petition the factual matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation and if it is denied, it will leave many loose ends, which is not desired. Thus, the present petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. It is made clear that nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. 2026 (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present petition the factual matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of is necessary for effective investigation and if it is denied, it will leave many loose ends, which is not desired. Thus, the present petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. It is made clear that nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present petition in the factual matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of is necessary for effective investigation and if it is denied, it will leave many loose ends, which is not desired. Thus, the present petition It is made clear that nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 18.19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment