CRM-M-14449-2025 1 231 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-14449-2025 Date of decision:21.04.2025 MANINDER SINGH ..Petitioner Versus UT OF CHANDIGARH ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Manjot Singh Gujral, Advocate, Mr. Gaurav Charaya, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Bansal, PP, U.T. Chandigarh. HARPREET SINGH BRAR , (ORAL). 1. The instant petition is preferred under Section 482 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.9, dated 19.02.2024, registered under Sections 323, 341, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 307 IPC, added later on, at Police Station Sec-03 (North), Chandigarh. 2. On 18.03.2025, following order was passed: “Instant petition is preferred under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.9 dated 19.02.2024 under Sections 323, 341, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 307 of IPC (added later on), registered at Police Station Sector-3 (North), Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner. Perusal of the case set up by the prosecution indicates that the petitioner along with co-accused namely Davinder Singh, Simranpreet Singh and Parvinder Singh Poonam 2025.04.24 02:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-14449-2025 2 have caused injuries on the person of Manpreet Singh. Similarly situated co-accused Davinder Singh and Parvinder Singh have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 20.02.2025 passed in CRM-M2881-2025 (Annexure P-4) and the order dated 04.03.2025 passed in CRM-M6620- 2025 (Annexure P-5), respectively. Further, the injuries suffered by injured Manpreet Singh are declared grievous in nature breaching the threshold of Section 325 of IPC. However, injured Manpreet Singh made a complete somersault to the case set up by the prosecution and tendered an affidavit before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, on the basis of which, co-accused Simranpreet Singh was granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 03.10.2024 (Annexure P-6). It is further contended that none of the injury has been declared dangerous to life by the medical expert and the petitioner also suffered an injury in the alleged incident. Notice of motion for 21.04.2025. Keeping in view the ratio of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2010 SCC OnLine SC 137; Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. Vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565, Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State of NCT Delhi 2020 (1) RCR (Criminal) 833, the petitioner is directed to appear before Investigating Officer within a period of two weeks from today and thereafter, as directed by the Investigating Officer. In the event of arrest, the petitioner will be admitted to interim anticipatory bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Investigating/Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation/Arresting Officer and abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of BNSS (erstwhile Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). If the Arresting Officer does not permit the petitioner to join the investigation, he would appear before Poonam 2025.04.24 02:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-14449-2025 3 learned Illaqa Magistrate, who would then summon the Arresting Officer and direct him to join the petitioner in the investigation, in terms of the order of this Court. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court and learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law.” 3. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Ramesh Pal, submits that in compliance of order dated 18.03.2025 passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation and is not required for further custodial interrogation. 4. Keeping in view the statement made by learned State Counsel, the order dated 18.03.2025, is made absolute. The petitioner shall abide by the terms and conditions enumerated in Section 482(2) BNSS, 2023 (Erstwhile Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.) 5. The petition is accordingly disposed of. 6. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be an expression of opinion by this Court lest it may prejudice the trial. The learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law. 21.04.2025 (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) Poonam JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No Poonam 2025.04.24 02:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document