CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----38877 38877 38877 38877 111 111 111 111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Sukhsehajpreet Singh @ Sehajpreet Singh State of Punjab Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present Present Present Present: SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 438 of the Cr. P.C.) petitioner, in case bearing FIR No. offences punishable under Sections Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Arms Act, 1959 (for short ‘Arms Act’) later on), at Police Station Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn Taran, Punjab. 2. namely, Gurjinder Singh @ Gora P.M., his friend, R having tea together, they proceeded to Goindwal Sahib in Ramandeep Singh 38877 38877 38877 38877----2026 2026 2026 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----38877 38877 38877 38877----2026 2026 2026 2026 Sukhsehajpreet Singh @ Sehajpreet Singh versus Punjab Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: July 17 July 17 July 17 July 17, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: July 17 July 17 July 17 July 17, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Anoop Verma, Advocate for Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab. ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) Section 438 of the Cr. P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the in case bearing FIR No.0073 dated offences punishable under Sections 109, 126, 191, 190, 351, 324 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) Arms Act, 1959 (for short ‘Arms Act’) (Section later on), at Police Station Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn Taran, Punjab. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that Gurjinder Singh @ Gora alleged that on 04.02.2020, at about 06:00 P.M., his friend, Ramandeep Singh came to his house to meet him. After having tea together, they proceeded to Goindwal Sahib in Ramandeep Singh 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH 2026 2026 2026 2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL the petitioner. Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab. filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail to the dated 05.02.2026, registered for the 109, 126, 191, 190, 351, 324 of the (for short ‘BNS’) and Sections 25, 27 of the (Sections 117 & 238 of the BNS added later on), at Police Station Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn Taran, Punjab. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the complainant, alleged that on 04.02.2020, at about 06:00 amandeep Singh came to his house to meet him. After having tea together, they proceeded to Goindwal Sahib in Ramandeep Singh’s 1111 ....Petitioner ....Respondent filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail to the registered for the the and Sections 25, 27 of the 238 of the BNS added the complainant, alleged that on 04.02.2020, at about 06:00 amandeep Singh came to his house to meet him. After s MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.17 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----38877 38877 38877 38877----2026 2026 2026 2026 2222 Scorpio vehicle at about 07:00 P.M. At around 10:00 P.M., while returning to the complainant’s house via Fatehabad, and when they had reached approximately 100 yards from his residence, they noticed a car stationed ahead of them. Suddenly, 6–7 persons emerged, intercepted their vehicle, and indiscriminately opened fire with the intention to kill them. The bullets hit & got struck in the windshield of their vehicle. It is further alleged that the complainant and Ramandeep Singh alighted from the vehicle and attempted to flee. As soon as the complainant got down from the vehicle, one of the assailants fired gunshot at him, causing an injury near the calf of his right leg, due to which he fell to the ground. Thereafter, one of the assailants inflicted a datar blow on the middle of his head. When Ramandeep Singh attempted to rescue the complainant, the assailants also scuffled with him, and one of them dealt a blow with a baseball bat on the complainant’s right leg. Upon the complainant raising an alarm, his cousin, Gurpreet Singh, reached the spot. The complainant and Gurpreet Singh identified the assailants as Sehajpreet Singh (petitioner herein) armed with a pistol; Resham Singh armed with a datar; Shera Randhawa, armed with a rifle; and 2–3 other unidentified persons armed with baseball bats. It is alleged that before fleeing the spot in their vehicle, the assailants also caused damage to the complainant’s vehicle and fired shots in the air. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR. Learned counsel has submitted that, in fact, earlier on 10.09.2023, engagement ceremony of the petitioner’s sister, namely, Komalpreet Kaur was held with the complainant, and the complainant, who was residing abroad, voluntarily MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.17 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----38877 38877 38877 38877----2026 2026 2026 2026 3333 participated throughout the engagement ceremony through a live video call, which also broadcasted on YouTube and had unequivocally accepted the said alliance. Learned counsel has further submitted that, after a considerable lapse of time, the complainant himself withdrew from the proposed marriage on wholly frivolous grounds. It is further contended that when the petitioner’s family sought reimbursement of the expenses incurred on the engagement ceremony, the complainant openly threatened to falsely implicate the petitioner in serious non-bailable offences, asserting his proximity with the local police and his financial influence. Learned counsel has further submitted that due to the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has been indulged into the FIR in question. It has been further asserted that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence at the time of the alleged incident. Rather, he was approximately 08 kilometres away, at Gill Dhabha, Goindwal Sahib, and his presence can be verified from the CCTV footage of the said premises as well as mobile tower location records. Learned counsel has further argued that there is unexplained delay of 01 day in registration of the FIR in question, i.e., 05.02.2026, whereas, the alleged occurrence took place on 04.02.2026 at about 10:00 p.m. 3.1. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner was granted concession of interim anticipatory bail by the trial Court, vide order dated 19.03.2026; and pursuant thereto, the petitioner had joined investigation and cooperated therein. Learned counsel has urged that despite the petitioner having joined investigation, the interim protection afforded to the petitioner has been vacated, vide order dated 15.04.2026 by the trial Court, on the ground the petitioner and his co-accused have not got the weapon and car recovered, used at the time of occurrence, and have not cooperated in the investigation. Learned counsel has argued that it is the case of the complainant only that the assailants MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.17 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----38877 38877 38877 38877----2026 2026 2026 2026 4444 had arrived and fled in a white-coloured car, but the complainant did not disclose even the registration number of the said vehicle. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner is holder of a valid arms licence and has, during investigation, voluntarily surrendered his licensed weapon before the Investigating Agency. Learned counsel has further argued that assuming arguendo, the prosecution version is taken to be correct, no offence under Section 109 of the BNS (erstwhile Section 307 of IPC) is made out against the petitioner from the factual milieu of the case in hand. 3.2. Learned counsel has asserted that nothing incriminating is to be recovered from the petitioner. Moreover, the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and, hence, no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. It is argued that the assailants stopped the vehicle of the complainant and started firing directly at them. When the complainant and his friend tried to run away from the spot, at that moment, the assailants fired at him and the shot hit near the calf of his right leg and he fell down. The assailants gave datar blow on the middle of the head of the complainant, and baseball blow hit on his right leg. The complainant and his cousin recognized the assailants as the petitioner armed with pistol, co-accused – Resham Singh armed with datar, Shera Randhawa, armed with a rifle and 2-3 unknown persons armed with baseball bats. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.17 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----38877 38877 38877 38877----2026 2026 2026 2026 5555 4.1. It is, thus, argued that given the severity of the offence, there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioner may abscond from the process of justice and/or tamper with the prosecution witnesses/ evidence, if he is enlarged on bail. Learned State counsel has iterated that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative for the purpose of effective and fair investigation and to unearth the case of the prosecution. On these submissions, dismissal of the present petition is entreated for. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case. 6. As per the prosecution case and the material available on record, prima facie, serious and specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It is borne out from the record that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR and attributed an active role in the commission of the offence. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner, armed with a pistol, formed part of the unlawful assembly which intercepted the complainant’s vehicle and indiscriminately opened fire with the intention to commit murder. The occurrence, as alleged, was premeditated and executed in a coordinated manner, resulting in firearm and other injuries to the complainant. 6.1. It is further borne out from the record that the learned trial Court, vide order dated 19.03.2026, had granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner with a direction to join the investigation and cooperate therein. However, while deciding the matter finally vide order dated 15.04.2026, the learned trial Court observed that although the petitioner had joined the investigation, but he had failed to cooperate inasmuch as neither the weapon of offence nor the car allegedly used in the commission of the crime was got recovered at the instance of the petitioner and his co-accused. Consequently, MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.17 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----38877 38877 38877 38877----2026 2026 2026 2026 6666 the learned trial Court declined the concession of anticipatory bail and vacated the interim protection granted to the petitioner and his co-accused. 6.2. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. 7. 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 accused; the need for fair and free investigation, as also the deeper and wider impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and the preliminary investigation, appears to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State State State State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] 1039] 1039] 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) ““““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 informations 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 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, 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.”””” MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.17 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----38877 38877 38877 38877----2026 2026 2026 2026 7777 8. In view of the seriousness and gravity of allegations and the role attributed to the petitioner, this Court finds no compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the petitioner. Granting bail, at this stage, would not only undermine the administration of justice but may also embolden the accused and pose a threat to the safety and well-being of the victim/ complainant and other witnesses. 9. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, the investigation is still underway and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is being sought for effective investigation and to unearth the prosecution case. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed dismissed dismissed dismissed. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE July 17 July 17 July 17 July 17, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.17 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment