CRM-M-18122-2025 226 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18122-2025 Date of decision: 03.07.2025 Sandeep Singh @ Sipa ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Amandeep Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Akshay Kumar, A.A.G., Punjab. Mr. H.S. Bedi, Advocate for the complainant. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 0024 20.02.2025 Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib 118(2)/126(2)/351(2)/191(2)/ 191(3)/190 of BNS, 2023 1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail. 2. In paragraph 13 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents. 3. The facts and allegations are taken from short reply filed by State counsel, which reads as follows: “3. That the brief facts of the present case are that the present FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant Harsimran Singh, to the effect that; (i) The complainant was pursuing B.A. at Chandigarh University. On 19.02.2025, at about 10:00 am, Sandeep Singh @ Sipa (present petitioner) was roaming near the house of the complainant, which is situated outside the village. The petitioner Sandeep Singh @ Sipa repeatedly honked the horn of his vehicle and gave gestures to the complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner Sandeep Singh @ Sipa stopped near the house of the complainant. The complainant asked the reason to the petitioner Sandeep Singh @ Sipa, then Sandeep Singh @ Sipa started abusing the complainant. Thereafter, they 1 Jyoti Sharma 2025.07.14 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh CRM-M-18122-2025 grappled with each other, and the passersby intervened and separated them. Thereafter, the complainant went away to his house. The petitioner Sandeep Singh also left. (ii) The complainant further stated that after 15 minutes, the petitioner Sandeep Singh @ Sipa, came along with his brother Gurjant Singh, Karamjit Singh @ Karam, Baljit Singh @ Chhotu, Balvir Singh, and Arsh Khan, and they started hurling abuses in front of the house of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant came out of his house and restrained them from hurling abuses. On this, all the above-mentioned persons encircled the complainant and started giving him beatings with slaps and fist blows. The complainant raised an alarm, Marta Marta. On hearing the alarm of the complainant, his mother Parwinder Kaur came out and tried to stop the said persons from beating the complainant, but they continuously beaten the complainant. (iii) Subsequently, the petitioner Sandeep Singh @ Sipa gave a blow with an iron dah, which hit on the index finger of the left hand of the complainant, due to which the upper portion of his index finger got separated. Thereafter, the complainant and his mother continued to raise alarm. On hearing their alarm, people started gathering there. On seeing the gathering of people, all the accused persons, while threatening to kill the complainant, ran away from the spot along with their weapons. (iv) Thereafter, the complainant called his father, who took him to the Civil Hospital, Bassi Pathana, from where he was referred to the Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib. As per MLR no. 19/RJK/BP/2025 of the complainant, he suffered 05 injuries. Injury no.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were declared to have been inflicted with blunt weapon Injury no.1, 2, 3 were kept under observation and injury no.4 and 5 were declared simple. Injuries suffered by the complainant are as follows; Sr. No. Injuries Marked Injury number 1 Amputated left index finger from proximal phalanx carrying amputated part. Adv. Ortho Opinion. They have taken opinion form orthopadician. They have Adv. Amputated of Phalanx, U.T. Patient refused and Adv. For follow up after 1 week. Yes 2 2 Swelling over left evelid with assassination over it 1 x 0.5 CM Yes 5 3 Boggy swelling over left prital region 2x2 CM. Adv. Surgical opinion at DH FGS Yes 1 4 Swelling over right hand dorsum. Adv. Ortho Opinion Yes 3 5 Multiple assassination over left forearm 4x3 CM. Yes 4 2 Jyoti Sharma 2025.07.14 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh CRM-M-18122-2025 Copy of MLR is Annexure R1. (v) On the basis of the statement and MLR of the complainant, the present FIR (Annexure P-1) was registered under sections 118(2), 126(2), 351(2), 191(2), 191(3) and 190 BNS against Sandeep Singh @ Seepa (present petitioner), Gurjant Singh, Karamjit Singh @ Karma, Baljit Singh @ Chotu, Balbir Singh and Arsh Khan.” 4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. 5. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the short reply. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a cross case registered vide DDR No.25. He argued that on earlier two occasions, complainant threatened to kill him and without conceding and admitting it is a case of self-defence and even if it is exceeded, it is hardly excess. To the contrary, State counsel opposed the bail. Even the counsel for the complainant submits that complainant’s finger was amputated and separated and has referred to the short reply and medical report in this regard. 7. An analysis of the arguments would lead to the following outcome. It has come in evidence that petitioner gave blow with iron dah and its force was so strong that he cut index finger of the complainant and it was separated. The force which is used by the petitioner points towards cruelty which would dis-entitle the petitioner for anticipatory bail. 8. A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached primafacie points towards the petitioner’s involvement and does not make out a case for anticipatory bail. The impact of crime would also not justify anticipatory bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so. 9. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 10. Petition dismissed. Interim orders, if any, are recalled with immediate effect. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 03.07.2025 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes 3 Jyoti Sharma 2025.07.14 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh CRM-M-18122-2025 Whether reportable: No. 4 Jyoti Sharma 2025.07.14 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh