CRM-M-16101-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 225 CRM-M-16101-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 08.04.2025 LOVEPREET ALIAS BABA ALIAS LOVEPREET SINGH ....Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present : Mr. Mohan Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ankit Grewal, DAG Punjab. ***** SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL) 1. Status report dated 07.04.2025 filed in the form of an affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Shahkot, Jalandhar (Rural) is taken on record. Copy thereof has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Arguments heard. 3. By way of present petition filed under Section 482 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR (Annexure P-1) as under: FIR No. Dated Sections Police Station 118 26.08.2024 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 126(2), 191(3), 190 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Shahkot, District Jalandhar Rural, Punjab SANDAL SHARMA 2025.04.10 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-16101-2025 (O&M) -2- 4. It is inter alia contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He contends that there is a delay of 16 days in lodging the FIR. He further contends that no specific allegation has been attributed to the petitioner of having caused any injury to the injured. He submits that the petitioner is ready to join investigation and has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel while referring to the status report submitted by State has assailed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR and has caused injuries with datar to the complainant-Mandeep Singh and injured Sharandeep Singh @ Bhana. He submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to recover the weapon used in the commission of offence and prayed for dismissal of the bail petition. 6. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record, it transpires that as per the case of prosecution on the intervening night of 09/10.08.2024, a quarrel took place between Sharandeep Singh and Ajay Kumar at the Jagran. At about 04:00 AM on 10.08.2024, the complainant along with Sharandeep Singh again went to Jagran, where a car was parked and from the abovesaid car, accused Ajay Kumar, Lovepreet @ Baba (petitioner herein), Bobby Kumar, Satnam Singh, Gora and Vishal armed with datars and swords came towards them. The assailants started beating Sharandeep Singh. Co-accused Gora caught hold of Sharandeep Singh and SANDAL SHARMA 2025.04.10 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-16101-2025 (O&M) -3- the petitioner gave a reverse datar blow, which hit him on the right eye, right side of head and right ear. The injured fell down on the ground and co- accused Bobby gave a khanda blow to him, which hit the injured on his left wrist and thereafter co-accused Vishal gave khanda blow on his right leg. Upon raising alarm, the assailants ran away from the spot. During investigation, the statement of injured Sharandeep Singh was recorded on 26.08.2024, wherein he corroborated the version given by the complainant- Mandeep Singh. 7. A perusal of the record would reveal that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner of having given datar blow to the complainant as well as injured and the injury attributed to the petitioner on the left arm elbow of the injured Sharandeep Singh has been declared grievous in nature. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of offence, it is observed that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to recover the weapon used in the crime. Accordingly, no case is made out in favour of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail, as a consequence, the petition is hereby dismissed. 8. Any observation made above shall not be construed as opinion of this Court on the merits of the case. (SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE 08.04.2025 S.Sharma(syr) i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No SANDAL SHARMA 2025.04.10 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment