CRM-M- IN 208 Karanveer Vers State of Pun CORAM: Present: AARADHN 1. 13.12.2025 BNS, at P petition for 2. noticed her 196, Lasur Jalandhar therein tha brother Aja that their n -2173-2026 -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGA nveer Singh Versus of Punjab AM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AA Mr. G.S. Mihas, Advocate for Mr. Gautam Thapar, Senior DA **** ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) Petitioner, who is an accuse .2025, registered against him under , at Police Station Division No.5, ion for grant of anticipatory bail. Relevant facts as emerging fr d hereinbelow:- Bharat Kumar, son of Late Da asuri Mohalla, Near Chiman Lal har, set the criminal law in motio that at about 9.30-10.00 PM on r Ajay were going on Activa Scooter eir nephew Vikas Angural, son of R 1- PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH CRM-M-2173-2026 Date of Decision: 20.02.2026 …Petitioner. …Respondent. CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. te for the petitioner. nior DAG, Punjab. accused in case FIR No. 183 date under Sections 103(1), 351(3), 3(5) o.5, Jalandhar, has filed the prese ging from the documents on record b e Daulat Ram, resident of H. No. WO Lal’s Depot, Basti Danishmanda otion by filing a complaint pointin on 12.12.2025, he along with h ooter on Durga’s well, when they sa of Ravi Kumar was being attacked b .2026 dated 3(5) of present cord be . WO- ndan, inting th his y saw ked by GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.02 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- three boys, identify on iron pickax further poi arms when his nephew today. The nephew, du rescue of t blows upon were made declared b requested t in the tragi On the ba 13.12.2025 Division No was specif Karanveer present cas grant of Additional Aggrieved -2173-2026 -2 oys, who were armed with sharp e y one of them as Ravi Kumar @ Ka ickaxe, the other unknown persons pointed out that both the unknown hen Ravi Kumar @ Kalu gave repe phew. All of them were shouting The other unknown persons gave a , due to which he fell down. He an of their nephew, when the unknow upon him. On seeing them, the ass ade and injured was rushed to hosp ed brought dead. Primarily wi ted the police authorities to catch ho tragic murder and to initiate appro basis of said complaint, a forma 2025, was registered u/s 103(1), 351 n No.5, Jalandhar. It was in the disclosure statem specifically named in the complain nveer Singh cropped up and he was nt case vide GD No. 37 dated 16.12.20 Apprehending his arrest, peti t of pre-arrest bail. The said applic tional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, ieved of the same, the present petition 2- arp edged weapons. He was able Kalu, son of Roop Lal, who had ns were armed with iron sickles. H own boys were holding Vikas from h repeated ‘kirch’ blows in the chest ting that Vikas would not be spare ave a sickle blow on the head of h e and his brother came forward to known persons again inflicted sick assailants fled away. Arrangemen hospital, where unfortunately, he wa with this backdrop, complaina h hold of all those, who were involve ppropriate proceedings against them ormal case vide FIR No. 183 date 351(3), 3(5) of BNS, at Police Statio statement of Ravi Kumar @ Kalu, wh mplaint, that the name of petition e was nominated as co-accused in th 6.12.2025. t, petitioner moved an application fo application was dismissed by learne , vide order dated 20.12.202 etition has been filed for grant of bail. ble to ad an s. He om his hest of pared of his to the sickle ments e was ainant volved them. dated tation , who etitioner in the tion for learned .2025. f bail. GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.02 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 3. was not na only on the said disclos nature mad Evidence A not present does not ar spot and in disclosed th not witnes prosecution FIR has b members o MLA of Ja interrogatio him, as no being a law as and wh submission judgments (i) -2173-2026 -3 Learned counsel for the petiti not named in the FIR, has been false on the basis of disclosure statement disclosure statement is not admissible e made before the police authorities, in ence Act. Continuing further, learned co resent at the site, thus, the question of not arise. The fact that after the occu and interviewed people, who were osed that injuries were caused by Kal witnessed the incident and was intr cution only with a view to strengthen It is further the submission of has been lodged against the petitio bers of the ruling party in Punjab, dec of Jalandhar. It is also the contention rogation of petitioner is not needed, fo as no specific role or injury has been a a law abiding citizen, he is ready an nd when called for by the Investiga issions, learned counsel has plac ments:- Archana Kumari @ Archan Criminal Appeal No. 522 of No. 18066 of 2024, decided o 3- petitioner submits that petitioner, wh n falsely implicated in the present cas ment of co-accused Ravi Kumar. Th ssible in evidence, being confessional ities, in view of Section 25 of the India ned counsel contends that petitioner wa tion of him participating in the incide e occurrence, few reporters came to th were the real eye witnesses and wh y Kalu only. In fact, complainant ha as introduced at a later stage by th gthen their case. sion of learned counsel that the prese petitioner at the instance of the loc deceased being the nephew of an Ex tention of learned counsel that custodi ded, for nothing is to be recovered fro been attributed to him, but nonetheles dy and willing to join the investigatio vestigating Officer. In support of h placed reliance on the followin rchana Ray v. The State of Biha 2 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl ed on 31.01.2025; , who ent case ar. The sional in e Indian ner was incident e to the who ant had by the present he local f an Ex- ustodial from etheless, tigation t of his llowing Bihar, (Crl.) GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.02 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- (ii) (iii) 4. State coun incident, h assailants. interrogatio one of who has since the investi accused Ra witnesses, Rohanpreet deceased. which the s footage of of occurren role in fac restrained t Kalu to infl petitioner i efforts mad -2173-2026 -4 (ii) Akashdeep Singh v. State o 4307 of 2025 arising out of decided on 06.10.2025; (iii) Sukho Devi v. State of decided on 20.12.2024. Per contra, while opposing the counsel submits that complainant, ent, had specifically named Ravi K lants. After the aforesaid Kalu wa rogation, he disclosed the identification of whom was the present petitioner, a been arrested). Learned State co investigation, apart from recording sed Ravi Kumar @ Kalu, IO also rec esses, who had witnessed the inciden npreet Singh, who had suffered injuri ased. That apart, eye witnesses also h the sequence of events had unfolde ge of the area establishes the presence currence at the relevant time. As notic in facilitating attack on the deceas ained the victim and prevented his e to inflict fatal injuries to him (decease It is further the contention ioner is absconding and has not join t ts made by the police. Custodial inte 4- te of Punjab, Criminal Appeal N out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10445 of 202 e of Punjab, CRM-M-61964-202 ing the request for grant of bail, learne inant, who had actually witnessed th avi Kumar @ Kalu, as one of th lu was arrested, during the course o fication details of his other accomplice oner, apart from Prince @ Thapa (wh ate counsel further contends that durin rding the disclosure statement of co lso recorded statements of independe ncident, as also that of injured witne injuries while attempting to rescue th s also elaborated upon the manner nfolded at the site. Further, the CCT esence of petitioner at/around the plac s noticed above, petitioner played a vit deceased by pinning him and, thu his escape, thus, enabling co-accuse eceased). ention of learned State counsel th join the investigation, despite repeate ial interrogation of petitioner is neede al No. f 2025 2024, learned sed the of the urse of mplices, pa (who t during of co- pendent witness scue the nner in CCTV he place d a vital d, thus, accused sel that repeated needed GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.02 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- for recover of the case. 5. documents 6. the counse Supreme C application 7. The State Supreme C ought not 8. petitioner i While men complaina pointed out deceased f ‘Kirch’. A accused Ka and that of three assai at/around t incriminatin clearly indi accused. -2173-2026 -5 ecovery of weapon of offence and als e case. Dismissal of the petition has be Heard learned counsel for th ments on record. Before expressing any opinio ounsels, it would be appropriate to r eme Court, wherein the factors to be k cation for grant of anticipatory bail, ha In Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ tate of Maharashtra and another, eme Court held that “Anticipatory ba not to be granted in a routine manne Factual backdrop of the cas ioner in the entire incident has been h mentioning the sequence of event lainant mentioned the name of one o ted out that two of other accomplices ased from his arms, when Kalu, re h’. As noticed above, apart from sed Kalu and Prince, IO also recorded that of eye witnesses, all of whom sta assailants. From the CCTV foota ound the place of occurrence was e minating material collected during th ly indicated the complicity of petition sed. There is nothing on record 5- nd also threw light upon the intricacie has been prayed for. for the parties and have perused th opinion on submissions raised by bo te to refer to the judgment of Hon’b o be kept in mind while dealing with a ail, have been discussed. etty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v her, 2025 AIR SC 3375, the Hon’b ry bail is an exceptional remedy an nner.” he case and the role played by th een highlighted in para 2 of this orde events that had unfolded at the sit one of the assailants as Kalu and als plices of Kalu had caught hold of th repeatedly stabbed deceased wi from the disclosure statements of co orded statements of injured Rohanpre om stated in one voice that theere we footage, the presence of petition was established. Based on the enti ing the course of investigation, whic etitioner, he was arrayed as one of th ecord to indicate, at this stage th tricacies sed the by both Hon’ble with an av vs. Hon’ble y and by the is order. the site, and also d of the ed with of co- anpreet were etitioner e entire , which e of the ge that GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.02 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- complainan unnecessari rightly sub petitioner conspiracy stage, in th circumstanc case of exc extra ordina petitioner a are, thus, 9. 20.02.2026 gbs -2173-2026 -6 lainant did not witness the incide cessarily dragged in on account of som ly submitted by learned State cou ioner is needed to recover the weapon piracy and other intricacies of the cas , in the opinion of the Court, in the li mstances brought on record, petitione of exceptional depravity or hardship ordinary relief of grant of pre-arrest b Facts of the referred judgment ioner are distinguishable from the fact hus, of not much help to petitioner. The petition being devoid of a .2026 Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable 6- incident or that petitioner has bee of some political rivalry. As has bee e counsel, custodial interrogation eapon used by him, to unearth the enti the case. Investigation being at a initi the light of facts and other connectin oner has not been able to make out rdship in his favour entitling him th rrest bail. gments cited by learned counsel for th he facts of the present case. The sam id of any merit is hereby dismissed. (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No as been as been tion of e entire a initial necting ke out a im this l for the he same NEY) GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.02 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document