CRM-M-26046 & 29057 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 214 Vardev Singh @ Noni Mann State of Punjab Nardev Singh @ Bobby Mann State of Punjab Coram : Present: Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. 1. Prayer in the present petition 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner dated 05.10.2024, registered under Section the BNS, 2023 and 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station City Jalalabad, District Fazilka. 2. It is apposite to mention here that petitioner Vardev Singh @ Noni Mann has filed the present petitioner Nardev Singh @ Bobby Mann has filed bearing CRM 26046 & 29057-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Vardev Singh @ Noni Mann Versus Punjab Nardev Singh @ Bobby Mann Versus State of Punjab Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj Mr. Bisman Mann, Advocate, Mr. Saurav Bhatia, Advocate, Mr. Veer Vikram Singh Mann, Advocate, Mr. Naurajdeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. T.P.S. Walia, AAG, Punjab. Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Raghav Gulati, Advocate, and Mr. Rahul Kesar, Advocate, for the complainant. **** Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. Prayer in the present petitions, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner 2024, registered under Sections 109/115(2), 351(2), 191(3), 19 the BNS, 2023 and 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station City Jalalabad, District Fazilka. It is apposite to mention here that petitioner Vardev Singh @ Noni Mann the present first petition bearing CRM petitioner Nardev Singh @ Bobby Mann has filed bearing CRM-M-29057-2025 as his first petition bearing CRM - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-26046-2025 Decided on:22.07.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent CRM-M-29057-2025 Decided on:22.07.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj Mr. Veer Vikram Singh Mann, Advocate, Mr. Naurajdeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. T.P.S. Walia, AAG, Punjab. Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate, with ti, Advocate, and Mr. Rahul Kesar, Advocate, for the complainant. , filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.142 s 109/115(2), 351(2), 191(3), 190 of the BNS, 2023 and 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station City Jalalabad, It is apposite to mention here that petitioner Vardev Singh @ Noni Mann rst petition bearing CRM-M-26046-2025, whereas petitioner Nardev Singh @ Bobby Mann has filed the present second petition 2025 as his first petition bearing CRM-M-22763-2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent ...Petitioner ...Respondent , filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 142 0 of the BNS, 2023 and 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station City Jalalabad, It is apposite to mention here that petitioner Vardev Singh @ Noni Mann 2025, whereas second petition 2025 VINOD KUMAR 2025.07.31 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26046 & 29057 for grant of anticipatory bail was dismissed by this Court vid 03.05.2025. In CRM granted interim protection from arrest to petitioner Vardev Singh @ Noni Mann vide order dated 19.05.2025 and, thereafter, the case was posted for 02.07.2025 for hearing. Gurpreet Singh, assailed the said interim order dated 19.05.2025 before the Supreme Court disposed of by the Supreme Court vide its order as follows:- Hence, in compliance of the order passed by the Supreme Court, both these petitions are taken up for final hearing. 3. Succinctly, the facts of the present case are tha been registered on the statement of the complainant, namely, Gurpreet Singh son of Beant Singh, who had alleged that he is a worker of Aam Aadmi Party 26046 & 29057-2025 for grant of anticipatory bail was dismissed by this Court vid 03.05.2025. In CRM-M-26046-2025, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had granted interim protection from arrest to petitioner Vardev Singh @ Noni Mann vide order dated 19.05.2025 and, thereafter, the case was posted for 02.07.2025 for hearing. However, the complainant/first informant of the FIR, namely, Gurpreet Singh, assailed the said interim order dated 19.05.2025 before the Supreme Court by way of SLP (Criminal) No.2938 disposed of by the Supreme Court vide its order “1. Permission to file the Special Leave Petition is granted. 2. We are not inclined to entertain the present petition since it arises out of purely an interlocutory order. By the impugned order the High Court has only granted interim protection for a short period. 3. The matter was posted yesterday. On a query put t learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as to what happened before the High Court yesterday, it is informed that the matter is now kept on 02.07.2025 on account of pendency of the present petition. 4. Since the High court has kept the matter only on account of the pendency of this petition, we request the High Court to prepone the matter and decide the issue with regard to continuation or discontinuation of the interim protection. 5. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of above terms. 6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Hence, in compliance of the order passed by the Supreme Court, both these petitions are taken up for final hearing. Succinctly, the facts of the present case are tha been registered on the statement of the complainant, namely, Gurpreet Singh son of Beant Singh, who had alleged that he is a worker of Aam Aadmi Party - 2 - for grant of anticipatory bail was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 2025, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had granted interim protection from arrest to petitioner Vardev Singh @ Noni Mann vide order dated 19.05.2025 and, thereafter, the case was posted for 02.07.2025 However, the complainant/first informant of the FIR, namely, Gurpreet Singh, assailed the said interim order dated 19.05.2025 before the by way of SLP (Criminal) No.29388/2025 and the same was disposed of by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 29.05.2025 by observing Permission to file the Special Leave Petition is granted. We are not inclined to entertain the present petition since it arises out of purely an interlocutory order. By the impugned order the High Court has only granted interim protection for a The matter was posted yesterday. On a query put to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as to what happened before the High Court yesterday, it is informed that the matter is now kept on 02.07.2025 on account of pendency of Since the High court has kept the matter on 02.07.2025 only on account of the pendency of this petition, we request the High Court to prepone the matter and decide the issue with regard to continuation or discontinuation of the interim The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of in the Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” Hence, in compliance of the order passed by the Supreme Court, both these petitions are taken up for final hearing. Succinctly, the facts of the present case are that the FIR in question had been registered on the statement of the complainant, namely, Gurpreet Singh son of Beant Singh, who had alleged that he is a worker of Aam Aadmi Party e order dated 2025, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had granted interim protection from arrest to petitioner Vardev Singh @ Noni Mann vide order dated 19.05.2025 and, thereafter, the case was posted for 02.07.2025 However, the complainant/first informant of the FIR, namely, Gurpreet Singh, assailed the said interim order dated 19.05.2025 before the 8/2025 and the same was dated 29.05.2025 by observing Permission to file the Special Leave Petition is granted. We are not inclined to entertain the present petition since it arises out of purely an interlocutory order. By the impugned order the High Court has only granted interim protection for a o the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as to what happened before the High Court yesterday, it is informed that the matter is now kept on 02.07.2025 on account of pendency of on 02.07.2025 only on account of the pendency of this petition, we request the High Court to prepone the matter and decide the issue with regard to continuation or discontinuation of the interim in the ” Hence, in compliance of the order passed by the Supreme Court, both FIR in question had been registered on the statement of the complainant, namely, Gurpreet Singh son of Beant Singh, who had alleged that he is a worker of Aam Aadmi Party VINOD KUMAR 2025.07.31 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26046 & 29057 and had filed his nomination paper for contesting election of Sarpanch of his village with the Returning Officer, Jalalabad. His Chacha (uncle) Shaminder Singh was along to the opposite political party for the post of Sarpanch. He along Singh) had come to the office of the BDPO, Jalalabad for filing the nomination paper. Mandeep Singh, who was a party worker, was a at that time village Chak Mohammade Wala. At about 4.30 p.m., Vardev Singh @ Noni Mann and Nardev Singh @ Bobby Mann (petitioners herein), Harpinder Singh son of Vardev Singh, Harman Singh, Balraj Singh along persons, who could be identified by him, were already present in the office of the BDPO. He produced objections on the nomination paper of Harpinder Singh on the ground that he was in illegal p village Chak Suhele Wala and had set up his private office on the panchayat land as well as also established on this land. Hence, the NOC of the said school been cancelled by the State of Punjab and the recognition/affiliation granted by the CBSE was also cancelled. The said before the Hon’ble High Court by way of filing two writ petitions and due to the same, Vardev Singh and Nardev Singh were and his Chacha Shaminder Singh. It is because of the same, all those persons started throwing brickbats on them when they reached in the office of the BDPO. When they tried to slip away Mann fired a shot from his revolver towards him which did not hit him. Thereafter, Vardev Sing short from his revolver, however, the said fire shot did not hit him bullet hit on the chest of Mandeep Singh who was standing 26046 & 29057-2025 and had filed his nomination paper for contesting election of Sarpanch of his illage with the Returning Officer, Jalalabad. His Chacha (uncle) Shaminder Singh was along with him. Harpinder Singh son of Vardev Singh, who belongs to the opposite political party, Akali Dal, has also filed his nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch. He along with his Chacha, (Ex. Singh) had come to the office of the BDPO, Jalalabad for filing the nomination paper. Mandeep Singh, who was a party worker, was a at that time and had filed his nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of village Chak Mohammade Wala. At about 4.30 p.m., Vardev Singh @ Noni Mann and Nardev Singh @ Bobby Mann (petitioners herein), Harpinder Singh ev Singh, Harman Singh, Balraj Singh along persons, who could be identified by him, were already present in the office of the BDPO. He produced objections on the nomination paper of Harpinder Singh on the ground that he was in illegal possession of the panchayat land of village Chak Suhele Wala and had set up his private office on the panchayat as well as their private school in the name of Mata Gujri Public School is established on this land. Hence, the NOC of the said school been cancelled by the State of Punjab and the recognition/affiliation granted by the CBSE was also cancelled. The said cancellation had been assailed by them Hon’ble High Court by way of filing two writ petitions and due to e, Vardev Singh and Nardev Singh were and his Chacha Shaminder Singh. It is because of the same, all those persons started throwing brickbats on them when they reached in the office of the BDPO. When they tried to slip away from Mann fired a shot from his revolver towards him which did not hit him. Thereafter, Vardev Singh @ Bobby Mann, with an intention to kill him, fired a short from his revolver, however, the said fire shot did not hit him bullet hit on the chest of Mandeep Singh who was standing - 3 - and had filed his nomination paper for contesting election of Sarpanch of his illage with the Returning Officer, Jalalabad. His Chacha (uncle) Shaminder with him. Harpinder Singh son of Vardev Singh, who belongs Akali Dal, has also filed his nomination paper with his Chacha, (Ex.-Sarpanch Shaminder Singh) had come to the office of the BDPO, Jalalabad for filing the nomination paper. Mandeep Singh, who was a party worker, was also present in the office and had filed his nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of village Chak Mohammade Wala. At about 4.30 p.m., Vardev Singh @ Noni Mann and Nardev Singh @ Bobby Mann (petitioners herein), Harpinder Singh ev Singh, Harman Singh, Balraj Singh along with 15-20 unknown persons, who could be identified by him, were already present in the office of the BDPO. He produced objections on the nomination paper of Harpinder ossession of the panchayat land of village Chak Suhele Wala and had set up his private office on the panchayat their private school in the name of Mata Gujri Public School is established on this land. Hence, the NOC of the said school had already been cancelled by the State of Punjab and the recognition/affiliation granted by cancellation had been assailed by them Hon’ble High Court by way of filing two writ petitions and due to e, Vardev Singh and Nardev Singh were nurturing a grudge against him and his Chacha Shaminder Singh. It is because of the same, all those persons started throwing brickbats on them when they reached in the office of the from the spot, Nardev Singh @ Bobby Mann fired a shot from his revolver towards him which did not hit him. @ Bobby Mann, with an intention to kill him, fired a short from his revolver, however, the said fire shot did not hit him instead the bullet hit on the chest of Mandeep Singh who was standing beside him. The and had filed his nomination paper for contesting election of Sarpanch of his illage with the Returning Officer, Jalalabad. His Chacha (uncle) Shaminder with him. Harpinder Singh son of Vardev Singh, who belongs Akali Dal, has also filed his nomination paper Sarpanch Shaminder Singh) had come to the office of the BDPO, Jalalabad for filing the nomination lso present in the office and had filed his nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of village Chak Mohammade Wala. At about 4.30 p.m., Vardev Singh @ Noni Mann and Nardev Singh @ Bobby Mann (petitioners herein), Harpinder Singh known persons, who could be identified by him, were already present in the office of the BDPO. He produced objections on the nomination paper of Harpinder ossession of the panchayat land of village Chak Suhele Wala and had set up his private office on the panchayat their private school in the name of Mata Gujri Public School is had already been cancelled by the State of Punjab and the recognition/affiliation granted by cancellation had been assailed by them Hon’ble High Court by way of filing two writ petitions and due to nurturing a grudge against him and his Chacha Shaminder Singh. It is because of the same, all those persons started throwing brickbats on them when they reached in the office of the Singh @ Bobby Mann fired a shot from his revolver towards him which did not hit him. @ Bobby Mann, with an intention to kill him, fired a instead the him. The VINOD KUMAR 2025.07.31 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26046 & 29057 assailants kept on throwing brickbats on them and while raising (exhortation), they escaped from the place of occurrence. The complainant, with the help of his to Civil Hospital, Jalalabad where the doctor referred him to DMC, Ludhiana. Later on, he came to know that in this incident, Rajesh Kumar son of Tilak Raj also sustained injuries. The request was the culprits. Apprehending arrest, petitioner learned Additional Sessions Judge, anticipatory bail, however, after hearing both the sides, the said relief was declined to him vide order dated application filed by petitioner Nardev Singh @ Noni Mann was declined by the learned Additional Sessions had earlier approached this Court by way of filing CRM was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 03.05.2025 and, thus, he has approached this Court again by way of filing bearing CRM 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioners have been falsely and frivolously implicated in this case as an act of political vendetta. It is submitted that admittedly, the complainant in the present case is an active member of the ruling Aam Aadmi Party, whereas the petitioners before this Court belong to the opposite Akali Dal party. It is submitted that father of the petitio Petitioner-Vardev Singh also contested election for the Member of Legislative Assembly but remained unsuccessful. It is submitted that the petitioners have been deliberately implicated in the present case. Petitioner Harpinder Singh Mann was filing the nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch, which the complainant, being member of the ruling party, was 26046 & 29057-2025 assailants kept on throwing brickbats on them and while raising (exhortation), they escaped from the place of occurrence. The complainant, with the help of his Chacha Shaminder Singh and others, shifted Mandeep Sigh to Civil Hospital, Jalalabad where the doctor referred him to DMC, Ludhiana. he came to know that in this incident, Rajesh Kumar son of Tilak Raj also sustained injuries. The request was made to take legal action against the culprits. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. Apprehending arrest, petitioner Vardev Singh @ Noni Mann learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka icipatory bail, however, after hearing both the sides, the said relief was declined to him vide order dated 06.05.2025 application filed by petitioner Nardev Singh @ Noni Mann was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka vide order dated 24.04.2025 and he had earlier approached this Court by way of filing CRM was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 03.05.2025 and, thus, he has approached this Court again by way of filing bearing CRM-M-29057-2025 for grant of concession of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the petitioners have been falsely and frivolously implicated in this case as an act of vendetta. It is submitted that admittedly, the complainant in the present case is an active member of the ruling Aam Aadmi Party, whereas the petitioners before this Court belong to the opposite Akali Dal party. It is submitted that father of the petitioners is an Ex.Me Vardev Singh also contested election for the Member of Legislative Assembly but remained unsuccessful. It is submitted that the petitioners have been deliberately implicated in the present case. Petitioner Harpinder Singh Mann was filing the nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch, which the complainant, being member of the ruling party, was - 4 - assailants kept on throwing brickbats on them and while raising lalkaras (exhortation), they escaped from the place of occurrence. The complainant, Chacha Shaminder Singh and others, shifted Mandeep Sigh to Civil Hospital, Jalalabad where the doctor referred him to DMC, Ludhiana. he came to know that in this incident, Rajesh Kumar son of Tilak Raj made to take legal action against On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. Vardev Singh @ Noni Mann approached the Fazilka, for grant of concession of icipatory bail, however, after hearing both the sides, the said relief was 06.05.2025. However, the anticipatory bail application filed by petitioner Nardev Singh @ Noni Mann was declined by the Judge, Fazilka vide order dated 24.04.2025 and he had earlier approached this Court by way of filing CRM-M-22763-2025, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 03.05.2025 and, thus, he has approached this Court again by way of filing the present second petition for grant of concession of anticipatory bail. s has vehemently contended that the petitioners have been falsely and frivolously implicated in this case as an act of vendetta. It is submitted that admittedly, the complainant in the present case is an active member of the ruling Aam Aadmi Party, whereas the petitioners before this Court belong to the opposite Akali Dal party. It is ners is an Ex.Member of Parliament. Vardev Singh also contested election for the Member of Legislative Assembly but remained unsuccessful. It is submitted that the petitioners have been deliberately implicated in the present case. Petitioner Vardev Singh’s son Harpinder Singh Mann was filing the nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch, which the complainant, being member of the ruling party, was lalkaras (exhortation), they escaped from the place of occurrence. The complainant, Chacha Shaminder Singh and others, shifted Mandeep Sigh to Civil Hospital, Jalalabad where the doctor referred him to DMC, Ludhiana. he came to know that in this incident, Rajesh Kumar son of Tilak Raj made to take legal action against all On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. approached the , for grant of concession of icipatory bail, however, after hearing both the sides, the said relief was However, the anticipatory bail application filed by petitioner Nardev Singh @ Noni Mann was declined by the Judge, Fazilka vide order dated 24.04.2025 and he 2025, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 03.05.2025 and, thus, he has second petition s has vehemently contended that the petitioners have been falsely and frivolously implicated in this case as an act of vendetta. It is submitted that admittedly, the complainant in the present case is an active member of the ruling Aam Aadmi Party, whereas the petitioners before this Court belong to the opposite Akali Dal party. It is mber of Parliament. Vardev Singh also contested election for the Member of Legislative Assembly but remained unsuccessful. It is submitted that the petitioners have Vardev Singh’s son Harpinder Singh Mann was filing the nomination paper for the post of VINOD KUMAR Sarpanch, which the complainant, being member of the ruling party, was 2025.07.31 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26046 & 29057 opposing. In order to restrain the petitioners from filing the nomination paper(s), the complain submitted that by misusing their power, the complainant party got the nomination paper of the petitioner Vardev Singh’s son cancelled under the influence of the local MLA and his supporters. It is also su petitioners owned license however, the complainant and his supporters fired various shots respective weapons from the licensed weapon of the petitioner(s) but it complainant who have been falsely implicated in a deliberate manner. It is vehemently contended that the injured has suffere from the fire of a pistol. It is, thus, evident that the licensed weapon petitioner(s) w per the directions of the Election Commission, the installed and the process of election is to be video complainant side, being from the ruling party, had erased all the video recordings in order to suppress the truth. It is submitted that wife of the petitioner(s) had filed various representations to the SSP, Fazilka but he, being under the influence of the ruling party, intentionally did not take any action upon them and openly sided with the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon submits that in the FIR itself, it has been alleged that the petitioner(s) had fired with the intention to kill the complainant; however, the same did not hit the complainant petitioner(s) had no intention to hit Mandeep Singh. It is submitted that since there was no intention on the part of the petitioner(s), therefore, the offence under Section 109(1) of the BNS, 2023 is not even made out. It is 26046 & 29057-2025 opposing. In order to restrain the petitioners from filing the nomination the complainant party misused the government machinery. It is submitted that by misusing their power, the complainant party got the nomination paper of the petitioner Vardev Singh’s son cancelled under the influence of the local MLA and his supporters. It is also su petitioners owned license of .30 bore pistols however, the complainant and his supporters fired various shots respective weapons. It is further submitted that the bullets were never fired licensed weapon of the petitioner(s) but it complainant who had fired in a clandestine manner, for which the petitioners have been falsely implicated in a deliberate manner. It is vehemently contended that the injured has suffered pallet injuries which is not possible from the fire of a pistol. It is, thus, evident that the licensed weapon petitioner(s) were never used in the alleged occurrence. It is submitted that as per the directions of the Election Commission, the installed and the process of election is to be video complainant side, being from the ruling party, had erased all the video recordings in order to suppress the truth. It is submitted that wife of the r(s) had filed various representations to the SSP, Fazilka but he, being under the influence of the ruling party, intentionally did not take any action upon them and openly sided with the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon catena of judgments in support of their case and submits that in the FIR itself, it has been alleged that the petitioner(s) had fired with the intention to kill the complainant; however, the same did not hit the complainant instead it hit Mandeep Singh. T petitioner(s) had no intention to hit Mandeep Singh. It is submitted that since there was no intention on the part of the petitioner(s), therefore, the offence under Section 109(1) of the BNS, 2023 is not even made out. It is - 5 - opposing. In order to restrain the petitioners from filing the nomination misused the government machinery. It is submitted that by misusing their power, the complainant party got the nomination paper of the petitioner Vardev Singh’s son cancelled under the influence of the local MLA and his supporters. It is also submitted that the of .30 bore pistols, from which they never fired, however, the complainant and his supporters fired various shots with their . It is further submitted that the bullets were never fired licensed weapon of the petitioner(s) but it was the supporters of the had fired in a clandestine manner, for which the petitioners have been falsely implicated in a deliberate manner. It is vehemently d pallet injuries which is not possible from the fire of a pistol. It is, thus, evident that the licensed weapons of the never used in the alleged occurrence. It is submitted that as per the directions of the Election Commission, the CCTV cameras are to be installed and the process of election is to be video-graphed, however, the complainant side, being from the ruling party, had erased all the video recordings in order to suppress the truth. It is submitted that wife of the r(s) had filed various representations to the SSP, Fazilka but he, being under the influence of the ruling party, intentionally did not take any action upon them and openly sided with the complainant. Learned counsel for the catena of judgments in support of their case and submits that in the FIR itself, it has been alleged that the petitioner(s) had fired with the intention to kill the complainant; however, the same did not hit the hit Mandeep Singh. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner(s) had no intention to hit Mandeep Singh. It is submitted that since there was no intention on the part of the petitioner(s), therefore, the offence under Section 109(1) of the BNS, 2023 is not even made out. It is submitted opposing. In order to restrain the petitioners from filing the nomination misused the government machinery. It is submitted that by misusing their power, the complainant party got the nomination paper of the petitioner Vardev Singh’s son cancelled under the bmitted that the , from which they never fired, with their . It is further submitted that the bullets were never fired the supporters of the had fired in a clandestine manner, for which the petitioners have been falsely implicated in a deliberate manner. It is vehemently d pallet injuries which is not possible of the never used in the alleged occurrence. It is submitted that as CCTV cameras are to be owever, the complainant side, being from the ruling party, had erased all the video recordings in order to suppress the truth. It is submitted that wife of the r(s) had filed various representations to the SSP, Fazilka but he, being under the influence of the ruling party, intentionally did not take any action upon them and openly sided with the complainant. Learned counsel for the catena of judgments in support of their case and submits that in the FIR itself, it has been alleged that the petitioner(s) had fired with the intention to kill the complainant; however, the same did not hit the hus, it is evident that the petitioner(s) had no intention to hit Mandeep Singh. It is submitted that since there was no intention on the part of the petitioner(s), therefore, the offence submitted VINOD KUMAR 2025.07.31 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26046 & 29057 that petitioner Vardev Singh @ Noni Mann has already been granted interim protection and was directed to join the investigation, which he had already joined and, thus, he deserves though the ear Bobby Mann circumstances, he also deserves to 5. Per contra, complainant has for the petitioners and submits that the petitioners have been specifically named in the FIR. He further submits that the petitioners were duly armed with the fire ar fired the shots with intention to kill. It is submitted that the incident has taken place at the time of filing the nomination papers and evidently, large number of people were present there at raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no intention to kill is totally misconceived. He further submits that the ocular version is duly corroborated with the medical evidence and, thus, of anticipatory bail in view of the attending facts and circumstances. 6. Learned State counsel has also vehemently opposed the bail applications and drawn attention of this Court to the status report filed. He has submitted that the present were duly present at the by them, both Mandeep Singh and Rajesh Kumar suffered fire arm injuries. He further submits that the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners are totally misconceived as the same ar which can be assessed during the duly corroborated with the medical evidence and for the free and fair investigation, custodial interrogation of both the petitioners are requ 26046 & 29057-2025 that petitioner Vardev Singh @ Noni Mann has already been granted interim protection and was directed to join the investigation, which he had already joined and, thus, he deserves the grant of anticipatory bail. On the other hand, though the earlier anticipatory bail application of petitioner Nardev Singh @ Bobby Mann was dismissed by this Court but under the changed circumstances, he also deserves to be granted concession of anticipatory bail. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing on complainant has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the petitioners have been specifically named in the FIR. He further submits that the petitioners were duly armed with the fire arms and they fired from their respective weapons and they also fired the shots with intention to kill. It is submitted that the incident has taken place at the time of filing the nomination papers and evidently, large number of people were present there at the time of occurrence and, thus, the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no intention to kill is totally misconceived. He further submits that the ocular version is duly corroborated with the medical evidence and, thus, of anticipatory bail in view of the attending facts and circumstances. Learned State counsel has also vehemently opposed the bail applications and drawn attention of this Court to the status report filed. He has submitted that the present case is the case of eye witness account. Both the petitioners were duly present at the time and place of occurrence and due to the shots fired by them, both Mandeep Singh and Rajesh Kumar suffered fire arm injuries. He further submits that the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners are totally misconceived as the same ar which can be assessed during the trial. It is submitted that fire arm injuries are duly corroborated with the medical evidence and for the free and fair investigation, custodial interrogation of both the petitioners are requ - 6 - that petitioner Vardev Singh @ Noni Mann has already been granted interim protection and was directed to join the investigation, which he had already grant of anticipatory bail. On the other hand, lier anticipatory bail application of petitioner Nardev Singh @ was dismissed by this Court but under the changed granted concession of anticipatory bail. learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the petitioners have been specifically named in the FIR. He further submits that the petitioners were duly armed ms and they fired from their respective weapons and they also fired the shots with intention to kill. It is submitted that the incident has taken place at the time of filing the nomination papers and evidently, large number of the time of occurrence and, thus, the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no intention to kill is totally misconceived. He further submits that the ocular version is duly corroborated with the medical evidence and, thus, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail in view of the attending facts and circumstances. Learned State counsel has also vehemently opposed the bail applications and drawn attention of this Court to the status report filed. He has submitted is the case of eye witness account. Both the petitioners time and place of occurrence and due to the shots fired by them, both Mandeep Singh and Rajesh Kumar suffered fire arm injuries. He further submits that the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners are totally misconceived as the same are disputed questions of facts, trial. It is submitted that fire arm injuries are duly corroborated with the medical evidence and for the free and fair investigation, custodial interrogation of both the petitioners are required. It is that petitioner Vardev Singh @ Noni Mann has already been granted interim protection and was directed to join the investigation, which he had already grant of anticipatory bail. On the other hand, lier anticipatory bail application of petitioner Nardev Singh @ was dismissed by this Court but under the changed granted concession of anticipatory bail. behalf of the the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the petitioners have been specifically named in the FIR. He further submits that the petitioners were duly armed ms and they fired from their respective weapons and they also fired the shots with intention to kill. It is submitted that the incident has taken place at the time of filing the nomination papers and evidently, large number of the time of occurrence and, thus, the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no intention to kill is totally misconceived. He further submits that the ocular version is duly no case is made out for grant Learned State counsel has also vehemently opposed the bail applications and drawn attention of this Court to the status report filed. He has submitted is the case of eye witness account. Both the petitioners time and place of occurrence and due to the shots fired by them, both Mandeep Singh and Rajesh Kumar suffered fire arm injuries. He further submits that the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the e disputed questions of facts, trial. It is submitted that fire arm injuries are duly corroborated with the medical evidence and for the free and fair ired. It is VINOD KUMAR 2025.07.31 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26046 & 29057 further submitted that the petitioners are habitual offenders as they are involved in many other cases as well. He further submits that in view of the attending facts and circumstances, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out even if petitioner Vardev Singh @ Noni Mann had joined investigation in terms of the interim order passed by this Court. made out against the petitioner hence, prays for dismissal threshold and grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner affect the ongoing investigation. 7. available record, i occurrence in the present case had taken place in the office of the BDPO, Jalalabad at the time of filing of nomination papers for the election of the post of Sarpanch. Admittedly, the complainant belon Party and the petitioners belong to the rival Akali Dal party much present at the time and place of occurrence petitioners had fired shots from their respective weapons which hit Ma Singh and Rajesh Kumar and perusal of the record would show that on account of the fire arm injury sustained by injured Mandeep Singh, he remained admitted in DMC College & Hospital, Ludhiana from 05.10.2024 to 19.10.2024 and 07.12.2024 to 19.12.2024 produced also corroborate the allegations of fire arm injuries. with regard to the weapon used and the injuries sustained are still awaited. Since the investigation is at threshold, therefore, the contention learned counsel for the petitioner they have approached this Court for the grant of concession of anticipatory 26046 & 29057-2025 further submitted that the petitioners are habitual offenders as they are involved in many other cases as well. He further submits that in view of the attending facts and circumstances, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out even f petitioner Vardev Singh @ Noni Mann had joined investigation in terms of the interim order passed by this Court. He submit made out against the petitioners as per the investigation conducted so far and hence, prays for dismissal of the present petition threshold and grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner affect the ongoing investigation. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the available record, it is deciphered from the arguments advanced that the occurrence in the present case had taken place in the office of the BDPO, Jalalabad at the time of filing of nomination papers for the election of the post of Sarpanch. Admittedly, the complainant belon Party and the petitioners belong to the rival Akali Dal party much present at the time and place of occurrence petitioners had fired shots from their respective weapons which hit Ma Singh and Rajesh Kumar and perusal of the record would show that on account of the fire arm injury sustained by injured Mandeep Singh, he remained admitted in DMC College & Hospital, Ludhiana from 05.10.2024 to 19.10.2024 and 07.12.2024 to 19.12.2024, a total also corroborate the allegations of fire arm injuries. with regard to the weapon used and the injuries sustained are still awaited. Since the investigation is at threshold, therefore, the contention learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be appreciated at this stage where approached this Court for the grant of concession of anticipatory - 7 - further submitted that the petitioners are habitual offenders as they are involved in many other cases as well. He further submits that in view of the attending facts and circumstances, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out even f petitioner Vardev Singh @ Noni Mann had joined investigation in terms of He submits that prima facie case is as per the investigation conducted so far and of the present petitions as the investigation is still at threshold and grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners would adversely After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the from the arguments advanced that the occurrence in the present case had taken place in the office of the BDPO, Jalalabad at the time of filing of nomination papers for the election of the post of Sarpanch. Admittedly, the complainant belong to the ruling Aam Aadmi Party and the petitioners belong to the rival Akali Dal party and they were very much present at the time and place of occurrence. As per the allegations, the petitioners had fired shots from their respective weapons which hit Mandeep Singh and Rajesh Kumar and perusal of the record would show that on account of the fire arm injury sustained by injured Mandeep Singh, he remained admitted in DMC College & Hospital, Ludhiana from 05.10.2024 to , a total of 28 days. The MLRs also corroborate the allegations of fire arm injuries. The FSL report with regard to the weapon used and the injuries sustained are still awaited. Since the investigation is at threshold, therefore, the contentions raised by the cannot be appreciated at this stage where approached this Court for the grant of concession of anticipatory further submitted that the petitioners are habitual offenders as they are involved in many other cases as well. He further submits that in view of the attending facts and circumstances, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out even f petitioner Vardev Singh @ Noni Mann had joined investigation in terms of case is as per the investigation conducted so far and as the investigation is still at would adversely After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the from the arguments advanced that the occurrence in the present case had taken place in the office of the BDPO, Jalalabad at the time of filing of nomination papers for the election of the post g to the ruling Aam Aadmi and they were very . As per the allegations, the ndeep Singh and Rajesh Kumar and perusal of the record would show that on account of the fire arm injury sustained by injured Mandeep Singh, he remained admitted in DMC College & Hospital, Ludhiana from 05.10.2024 to The MLRs The FSL report with regard to the weapon used and the injuries sustained are still awaited. s raised by the cannot be appreciated at this stage where approached this Court for the grant of concession of anticipatory VINOD KUMAR 2025.07.31 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26046 & 29057 bail. However, the same could be appreciated at the relevant stage. the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable on the basis of facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. are given under Section 482 (1) & (2) of 9. Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 26046 & 29057-2025 bail. However, the same could be appreciated at the relevant stage. gments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable on the basis of facts and circumstances of the present case. For the consideration of anticipatory bail, the statutory parameters are given under Section 482 (1) & (2) of BNSS which reads as under: “482. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest: 1. When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non may apply to the High Court or direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail. 2. When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including (i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; (iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub section (3) of section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section.” Hon'ble Supreme Court in State represented by (1997) 7 SCC 187 has held as under: “6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning - 8 - bail. However, the same could be appreciated at the relevant stage. Further, gments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable on the basis of facts and circumstances of the present case. For the consideration of anticipatory bail, the statutory parameters BNSS which reads as under:- “482. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest: When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; such other condition as may be imposed under sub section (3) of section 480, as if the bail were granted in State represented by CBI Vs. Anil has held as under:- “6. Anil has held as under:- “6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning Further, gments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners are For the consideration of anticipatory bail, the statutory parameters When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested bailable offence, he the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to a condition that the person shall not leave India without such other condition as may be imposed under sub- section (3) of section 480, as if the bail were granted CBI Vs. Anil “6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning VINOD KUMAR 2025.07.31 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26046 & 29057 10. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632 and again reiterated that while considering the anticipatory bail, the Court is to take into consideration the factors like gravity of offence, chances of accused tampering with the evidence and probabilities of his fleeing from justice etc. The Court should be circumspect about the impact of its decision on the society as well. The anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretion which should be exercised in the extraordinary circumstances. 11. apparent that the complicity of the petitioner has been The investigation is at its threshold. Thus, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage would scuttle the ongoing investigation. 12. Court is of the opinion that the petitioner do not qualify for exercising the 26046 & 29057-2025 a suspect who is well ensconded with 438 if the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Succession such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre the time he 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 c task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.” Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judicial precedents including Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632 and again reiterated that while considering the anticipatory bail, the Court is to take into consideration the factors like gravity of offence, chances of accused tampering with the evidence and probabilities of his fleeing from justice etc. Court should be circumspect about the impact of its decision on the society as well. The anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretion which should be exercised in the extraordinary circumstances. Weighing the facts of the case on the anvil of t apparent that the complicity of the petitioner has been The investigation is at its threshold. Thus, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage would scuttle the ongoing investigation. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner do not qualify for exercising the - 9 - a suspect who is well ensconded with a favorable order under Section if the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. gation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre-arrest bail during the time he interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial ogation 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 task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judicial precedents including Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632, has time and again reiterated that while considering the anticipatory bail, the Court is to take into consideration the factors like gravity of offence, chances of accused tampering with the evidence and probabilities of his fleeing from justice etc. Court should be circumspect about the impact of its decision on the society as well. The anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretion which should be exercised in the extraordinary circumstances. Weighing the facts of the case on the anvil of the law settled, it is apparent that the complicity of the petitioner has been prima facie established. The investigation is at its threshold. Thus, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage would scuttle the ongoing investigation. n view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner do not qualify for exercising the Section if the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. gation would elude if the suspected person arrest bail during the time he interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial ogation 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 onduct themselves in task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judicial precedents including , has time and again reiterated that while considering the anticipatory bail, the Court is to take into consideration the factors like gravity of offence, chances of accused tampering with the evidence and probabilities of his fleeing from justice etc. Court should be circumspect about the impact of its decision on the society as well. The anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretion which should be he law settled, it is established. The investigation is at its threshold. Thus, granting anticipatory bail to the n view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner do not qualify for exercising the VINOD KUMAR 2025.07.31 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26046 & 29057 extraordinary power by this Court in his favour. Resultantly, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, is 13. on the merits of the case. 14. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case. July 22, 2025 vinod* 26046 & 29057-2025 extraordinary power by this Court in his favour. Resultantly, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. Nothing said herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected , 2025 Whether Speaking/Reasoned: Whether Reportable: - 10 - extraordinary power by this Court in his favour. Resultantly, the present hereby dismissed. Nothing said herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected (Rajesh Bhardwaj) Judge Whether Speaking/Reasoned: NO/YES NO/YES extraordinary power by this Court in his favour. Resultantly, the present Nothing said herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected VINOD KUMAR 2025.07.31 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document