CRM-M-51947-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 103 CRM-M-51947-2025 Date of Decision : 16.09.2025 GURPREET SINGH …. PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB …. RESPONDENT CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present : Mr.A.S.Baweja, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (Oral) 1. Prayer is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.66 dated 26.07.2025 registered under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 118(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 at Police Station Nurmahal, District Jalandhar. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was present at Jalandhar for psychiatric treatment and, therefore, it is not possible that he visited the bank and threatened the complainant. Learned counsel further contended that the incident as alleged is of 14.07.2025 but the FIR in the present case was registered on 26.07.2025 i.e. after a delay of 12 days. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Accordingly, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail as the petitioner is ready to join the investigation. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab, accepted notice on behalf of respondent-State and contended that the complainant, who is an Assistant Anju Goel 2025.09.23 09:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-51947-2025 -2- Bank Manager, had advanced a loan to the petitioner. When the bank officials approached the petitioner for recovery of the said loan, he abused the staff; came to the bank; threatened complainant; and in the evening thereafter he waylaid him and caused injuries with a sharp-edged weapon which are grievous in nature. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation for recovery of weapon and is also involved in two more cases under Section 307 IPC. 5. Heard. 6. Keeping in view the facts of the case in hand, as the petitioner caused injuries to the Assistant Bank Manager and the reason is that the bank manager demanded the installments of the loan advanced by the bank to the petitioner. The antecedents of the petitioner are also not clean and clear as per the contentions of learned State counsel. Petitioner Gurpreet Singh is involved in two other cases under Section 307 of IPC. Moreover, the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation for recovery of weapon of offence. Hence, petitioner is not entitled for discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. 7. Dismissed. (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE 16.09.2025 anju Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No Anju Goel 2025.09.23 09:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh