Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 40033 (PNJ)

MANGAT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

CRM-M/17380/2025 · 2025-07-29

Sandeep Moudgil

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CRM-M-17380-2025 212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-17380-2025 DECIDED ON: 29.07.2025 MANGAT SINGH .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Arpan Sabharwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Verma, Sr. DAG, Punjab. SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL) 1. Relief Sought The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.28, dated 20.02.2025, under Sections 304(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 317(2) of BNS added later on, registered at Police Station Moti Nagar, District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana. 2. Contention On behalf of the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case as he has been nominated in the instant FIR on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused. He further contends that a compromise has been entered into between the petitioner and the complainant. He further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating officer concerned. SONIA BURA 2025.07.30 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CRM-M-17380-2025 On behalf of the State Learned State Counsel opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused in the instant FIR on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused. On behalf of the complainant Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and filed his Power of Attorney, which is taken on record. He admits the factum of compromise effected between the petitioner and the complainant and submits that he has no objection in case the petitioner is granted the concession of anticipatory bail. 4. Analysis Be that as it may, considering the fact that the petitioner was nominated as an accused only on the basis of disclosure statement of co- accused; a compromise has been effected between the petitioner and the complainant, which has been admitted by learned counsel for the complainant and also considering the undertaking given before this Court that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigation officer concerned. 5. Decision In the light of above, the petitioner is directed to be released on anticipatory bail subject to his joining investigation with the Investigating Officer concerned within a period of seven days from today, on furnishing of personal/surety bonds to his satisfaction. The petitioner shall also abide by the SONIA BURA 2025.07.30 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CRM-M-17380-2025 terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, which are reproduced below:- ‘When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub- section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including- (i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; (iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section.’ However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner does not comply with the aforesaid direction of joining the investigation within a period of seven days, the order passed by this Court today shall automatically stands cancelled. In the aforesaid terms, the present petition stands allowed. (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) 29.07.2025 JUDGE Sonia Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No SONIA BURA 2025.07.30 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document