CRM-M-15043-2025 -1- 106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-15043-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.04.2025 Harpreet Singh @ Kharku ... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Rhythem Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab. ******* HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.9 dated 21.01.2025 under Section 307 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) (Sections 341(2) & 317(2) of BNS were added later on), registered at Police Station Khuian Sarwar, District Fazilka. 2. The facts in brief, as alleged, are that FIR (supra) was registered on the statement made by the complainant, on the allegations that he was working as Salesman at Sokhal Kissan Seva Kendar, Petrol Pump and on 21.01.2025, along with one Anil Kumar, he was on duty. At about 11.30 p.m., VISHNU 2025.04.02 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-15043-2025 -2- four persons with muffled faces, having swords and iron rods came and broke open gate of the room and took Rs.1,20,740/- along with his mobile phone as well as DVR of CCTV camera installed at the petrol pump. With these allegations, FIR (supra) was registered against some unknown persons. Thereafter, supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded, wherein he disclosed the names of accused to be Harpreet Singh (petitioner), Sonu son of Babblu, Arman son of Pargat and Manish Godara son of Vishnu and the petitioner put sword on his neck and threatened him for dire consequences. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner is not named in the FIR (supra) and he has been nominated as accused after 05 days, when the supplementary statement was made by the complainant. Further, there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence and his identity as one of the assailants has not been established. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has been assigned specific role, as he put a sword on the neck of the complainant and snatched Rs.1,20,740/- from the petrol pump. The petitioner is involved in two more cases of similar nature. As such, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative to take the investigation to its logical end. Such incidents are on rise and granting the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner would send a bad signal to the society. VISHNU 2025.04.02 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-15043-2025 -3- 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance. 6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the antecedents of the petitioner, this Court finds no ground to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to him. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. 7. However, nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of opinion of this Court on merits of the case and learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits without being prejudiced by the observations of this Court. [ HARPREET SINGH BRAR ] 02.04.2025 JUDGE vishnu Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VISHNU 2025.04.02 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh