Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 104032 (PNJ)

JASHANPREET SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB

CRM-M/54394/2025 · 2025-09-25

Subhas Mehla

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-54394-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 104 CRM-M-54394-2025 Date of Decision : 25.09.2025 JASHANPREET SINGH …. PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB …. RESPONDENT CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present : Mr.L.S.Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (Oral) 1. Prayer is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.28 dated 03.02.2025 registered under Sections 109, 118(1), 126(2), 190, 191(3), 351(2), 51(2), 118(2), 61(2) of BNS, 2023 at Police Station City Sangrur, District Sangrur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that no offence under Section 109 of BNS, 2023 is made out as no injury has been declared as dangerous to life. Accordingly, he prayed for grant of concession of anticipatory bail. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab, accepted notice on behalf of respondent-State and submitted that a specific role is attributed to the present petitioner as he gave an ‘iron garari’ blow on the backside of the head of the complainant. As per medical record, complainant has received Anju Goel 2025.09.30 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-54394-2025 -2- fractured in his head and he placed on record the NCCT report. Learned State counsel further submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and involved in three more cases of similar nature. 6. Heard. 7. Keeping in view the contention of the learned State counsel that the present petitioner is a habitual offender and specific allegation is levelled against him that he gave an ‘iron garari’ blow on the backside of the head of the complainant. Oral version is also supported by the medical report i.e. NCCT, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to discretionary relief of anticipatory bail as he is required for custodial interrogation for the purpose of recovery of weapon of offence and for collecting of evidence. 8. Dismissed. (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE 25.09.2025 anju Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No Anju Goel 2025.09.30 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh