IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 204 HARNOOR SINGH @ HARRY STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present : Mr.B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab. MANISHA BATRA, J. (oral) 1. This is the first petition filed under Section 482 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No.79 dated 19.04.2023 registered under Section 379 Amritsar. 2. As per the allegations, on 19.07.2023, three persons w faces had come on a motorbike, had stopped the complainant and had snatched his wallet containing cash amount of Rs.1500/ card, registration certificate of his motorcycle, his mobile phone and two parcels kept in bag, somewhere. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The accused Sajanpreet Singh @ Chitta who was arrested in another case, suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvemen well and also disclosed about the complicity of the present petitioner and co accused Gurminder Singh @ Ginder, on the basis of which, present petitioner was nominated as an accused and was arrested. Apprehending his arrest, he IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.6938 of 2025 Date of decision: 28.03.2025 HARNOOR SINGH @ HARRY Versus STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr.B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab. **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (oral) This is the first petition filed under Section 482 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short-‘BNSS’) bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No.79 dated 19.04.2023 registered under Section 379-B and 34 of IPC, at Police Station Jandiala, As per the allegations, on 19.07.2023, three persons w faces had come on a motorbike, had stopped the complainant and had snatched his wallet containing cash amount of Rs.1500/ card, registration certificate of his motorcycle, his mobile phone and two parcels kept in bag, which were to be delivered by the complainant somewhere. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The accused Sajanpreet Singh @ Chitta who was arrested in another case, suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvemen well and also disclosed about the complicity of the present petitioner and co accused Gurminder Singh @ Ginder, on the basis of which, present petitioner was nominated as an accused and was arrested. Apprehending his arrest, he IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M No.6938 of 2025 Date of decision: 28.03.2025 …. Petitioner …. Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr.B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab. This is the first petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya ‘BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No.79 dated 19.04.2023 B and 34 of IPC, at Police Station Jandiala, As per the allegations, on 19.07.2023, three persons with covered faces had come on a motorbike, had stopped the complainant-Bikramjit Singh and had snatched his wallet containing cash amount of Rs.1500/-, Aadhaar card, registration certificate of his motorcycle, his mobile phone and two which were to be delivered by the complainant somewhere. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The accused Sajanpreet Singh @ Chitta who was arrested in another case, suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in this case as well and also disclosed about the complicity of the present petitioner and co- accused Gurminder Singh @ Ginder, on the basis of which, present petitioner was nominated as an accused and was arrested. Apprehending his arrest, he Bharatiya for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No.79 dated 19.04.2023 B and 34 of IPC, at Police Station Jandiala, ith covered Bikramjit Singh , Aadhaar card, registration certificate of his motorcycle, his mobile phone and two which were to be delivered by the complainant somewhere. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The accused Sajanpreet Singh @ Chitta who was arrested in another t in this case as - accused Gurminder Singh @ Ginder, on the basis of which, present petitioner was nominated as an accused and was arrested. Apprehending his arrest, he Jyoti 2025.04.02 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM moved an application for grant of pre Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 17.01.2025. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on accused which cannot be taken into consideration. The co been arrested and recovery of the alleged snatched articles has been effected from them. His custodial interrogation is not required. No effected from him. He was not named in the FIR. He is ready to join the investigation. No purpose would be served by detaining him into custody. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Status report dated 23. is taken on record. 5. Learned State counsel has argued that there are specific allegation against the petitioner as in pursuance of common intention with the co accused, offence of snatching wallet, mobile ph complainant and two parcels, had been committed by him. His custodial interrogation is must for conducting thorough investigation in the matter. Recovery of remaining snatched articles is also to be effected. No extra ordinary and exc Therefore, it is urged that petitioner does not deserve to be given concession of anticipatory bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 7. The petitioner offence of snatching articles belonging to the complainant on 19.04.2023. The CRM-M No.6938 of 2025 pplication for grant of pre-arrest bail which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order dated It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co accused which cannot be taken into consideration. The co been arrested and recovery of the alleged snatched articles has been effected from them. His custodial interrogation is not required. No effected from him. He was not named in the FIR. He is ready to join the investigation. No purpose would be served by detaining him into custody. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. Status report dated 23.03.2025 filed on behalf of respondent is taken on record. Learned State counsel has argued that there are specific allegation against the petitioner as in pursuance of common intention with the co accused, offence of snatching wallet, mobile ph complainant and two parcels, had been committed by him. His custodial interrogation is must for conducting thorough investigation in the matter. Recovery of remaining snatched articles is also to be effected. No extra ordinary and exceptional circumstance for grant of pre Therefore, it is urged that petitioner does not deserve to be given concession of anticipatory bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. The petitioner along with co-accused is alleged to have committed offence of snatching articles belonging to the complainant on 19.04.2023. The M No.6938 of 2025 -2- arrest bail which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order dated It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been the basis of disclosure statement of the co- accused which cannot be taken into consideration. The co-accused have since been arrested and recovery of the alleged snatched articles has been effected from them. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. He was not named in the FIR. He is ready to join the investigation. No purpose would be served by detaining him into custody. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 03.2025 filed on behalf of respondent-State Learned State counsel has argued that there are specific allegation against the petitioner as in pursuance of common intention with the co- accused, offence of snatching wallet, mobile phone belonging to the complainant and two parcels, had been committed by him. His custodial interrogation is must for conducting thorough investigation in the matter. Recovery of remaining snatched articles is also to be effected. No extra eptional circumstance for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. Therefore, it is urged that petitioner does not deserve to be given concession of I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. accused is alleged to have committed offence of snatching articles belonging to the complainant on 19.04.2023. The arrest bail which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order dated It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been - accused have since been arrested and recovery of the alleged snatched articles has been effected recovery is to be effected from him. He was not named in the FIR. He is ready to join the investigation. No purpose would be served by detaining him into custody. State Learned State counsel has argued that there are specific allegation - one belonging to the complainant and two parcels, had been committed by him. His custodial interrogation is must for conducting thorough investigation in the matter. Recovery of remaining snatched articles is also to be effected. No extra arrest bail is made out. Therefore, it is urged that petitioner does not deserve to be given concession of accused is alleged to have committed offence of snatching articles belonging to the complainant on 19.04.2023. The Jyoti 2025.04.02 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM co-accused have been arrested and some recoveries have been effected from them. Challan has also been presented against them. the same, the petitioner cannot seek concession of bail in view of the fact that recovery of some snatched articles is yet to be effected. Moreso, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for conducting thorough in in the matter as well. No extra ordinary or exceptional circumstance for grant of pre-arrest bail has been made out in favour of the petitioner. Keeping in view the nature of the allegations as levelled against him and the above disclosed facts, I am of the considered opinion that the present petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 8. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of 28.03.2025 Jyoti-IV CRM-M No.6938 of 2025 accused have been arrested and some recoveries have been effected from them. Challan has also been presented against them. the same, the petitioner cannot seek concession of bail in view of the fact that recovery of some snatched articles is yet to be effected. Moreso, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for conducting thorough in in the matter as well. No extra ordinary or exceptional circumstance for grant arrest bail has been made out in favour of the petitioner. Keeping in view the nature of the allegations as levelled against him and the above , I am of the considered opinion that the present petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No M No.6938 of 2025 -3- accused have been arrested and some recoveries have been effected from them. Challan has also been presented against them. However, on the basis of the same, the petitioner cannot seek concession of bail in view of the fact that recovery of some snatched articles is yet to be effected. Moreso, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for conducting thorough investigation in the matter as well. No extra ordinary or exceptional circumstance for grant arrest bail has been made out in favour of the petitioner. Keeping in view the nature of the allegations as levelled against him and the above , I am of the considered opinion that the present petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case. (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No. Yes/No accused have been arrested and some recoveries have been effected from However, on the basis of the same, the petitioner cannot seek concession of bail in view of the fact that recovery of some snatched articles is yet to be effected. Moreso, the custodial vestigation in the matter as well. No extra ordinary or exceptional circumstance for grant arrest bail has been made out in favour of the petitioner. Keeping in view the nature of the allegations as levelled against him and the above , I am of the considered opinion that the present petition does It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall Jyoti 2025.04.02 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document