IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 112 BALJEET SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. Present : Mr Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab MANISHA BATRA 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No. registered under Sections (for short-‘BNS’) Lopoke, District 2. The aforementioned FIR has been registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant 28.07.2024, he along with his friend Rajan was going towards market when the present petitioners along with co abuses. The petitioner had fired a shot with a pistol and the bullet hit his left shoulder and another shot was fired towards his friend Rajan which hit left side of his chest and the the hospital for treatment. After registration of the FIR, investigation IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M Date of decision: BALJEET SINGH Versus STATE OF PUNJAB HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Gursharan Singh, Advocate for the Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short-‘BNSS’) of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No. registered under Sections 109, 3(5), 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ‘BNS’) and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act , District Amritsar. The aforementioned FIR has been registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant-Harpal Singh on the allegations that on 28.07.2024, he along with his friend Rajan was going towards market when the esent petitioners along with co-accused had intercepted him. They hurled abuses. The petitioner had fired a shot with a pistol and the bullet hit his left shoulder and another shot was fired towards his friend Rajan which hit left side of his chest and thereafter, the assailants had fled away. Injured were taken to the hospital for treatment. After registration of the FIR, investigation IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M No.20094 of 2025 Date of decision: 09.04.2025 …. Petitioner …. Respondent MANISHA BATRA , Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.162 dated 28.07.2024 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, at Police Station The aforementioned FIR has been registered on the basis of Harpal Singh on the allegations that on 28.07.2024, he along with his friend Rajan was going towards market when the accused had intercepted him. They hurled abuses. The petitioner had fired a shot with a pistol and the bullet hit his left shoulder and another shot was fired towards his friend Rajan which hit left side reafter, the assailants had fled away. Injured were taken to the hospital for treatment. After registration of the FIR, investigation Bharatiya by the petitioner for grant 28.07.2024 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Station The aforementioned FIR has been registered on the basis of Harpal Singh on the allegations that on 28.07.2024, he along with his friend Rajan was going towards market when the accused had intercepted him. They hurled abuses. The petitioner had fired a shot with a pistol and the bullet hit his left shoulder and another shot was fired towards his friend Rajan which hit left side reafter, the assailants had fled away. Injured were taken to the hospital for treatment. After registration of the FIR, investigation Jyoti 2025.04.09 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document proceedings have been initiated and are underway. Apprehending the petitioner moved an application for grant been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 19.11.2024. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to some perso complainant. In fact, a verbal altercation had taken place between the complainant and himself 2 days back. On the fateful day, it was the members of the complainant party who had initiated the occurrence. They were armed with weapons. The petitioner had tried to prevent him from firing a shot and firearm had accidently hit the victims. They have been injured by their weapons. The injuries so sustained by them are non offences are not made out against the pe investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from. Accordingly, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Learned State counsel who has app petition, is ready to argue the matter. It is argued by her that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of pre 5. I have heard learned c 6. The petitioner is alleged to have fired shots with a fire arm upon the person of the complainant and his friend Rajan thereby, causing fire arm injuries to them. These injuries obviously CRM-M No.20094 of 2025 proceedings have been initiated and are underway. Apprehending the petitioner moved an application for grant been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 19.11.2024. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to some perso complainant. In fact, a verbal altercation had taken place between the complainant and himself 2 days back. On the fateful day, it was the members of the complainant party who had initiated the occurrence. They were armed . The petitioner had tried to prevent him from firing a shot and firearm had accidently hit the victims. They have been injured by their weapons. The injuries so sustained by them are non offences are not made out against the petitioner. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from. Accordingly, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. Notice of motion. Learned State counsel who has app petition, is ready to argue the matter. It is argued by her that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of pre-arrest bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. The petitioner is alleged to have fired shots with a fire arm upon the person of the complainant and his friend Rajan thereby, causing fire arm injuries to them. These injuries obviously wer M No.20094 of 2025 -2- proceedings have been initiated and are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which had been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to some personal vendetta with the complainant. In fact, a verbal altercation had taken place between the complainant and himself 2 days back. On the fateful day, it was the members of the complainant party who had initiated the occurrence. They were armed . The petitioner had tried to prevent him from firing a shot and firearm had accidently hit the victims. They have been injured by their weapons. The injuries so sustained by them are non-vital part of body. Subject titioner. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from. Accordingly, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. Learned State counsel who has appeared on advance notice of the petition, is ready to argue the matter. It is argued by her that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be ounsel for the parties at considerable length. The petitioner is alleged to have fired shots with a fire arm upon the person of the complainant and his friend Rajan thereby, causing fire arm re dangerous to life and specific his arrest, of anticipatory bail which had been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been nal vendetta with the complainant. In fact, a verbal altercation had taken place between the complainant and himself 2 days back. On the fateful day, it was the members of the complainant party who had initiated the occurrence. They were armed . The petitioner had tried to prevent him from firing a shot and firearm had accidently hit the victims. They have been injured by their vital part of body. Subject titioner. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be eared on advance notice of the petition, is ready to argue the matter. It is argued by her that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be The petitioner is alleged to have fired shots with a fire arm upon the person of the complainant and his friend Rajan thereby, causing fire arm and specific Jyoti 2025.04.09 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document injuries have been attributed to him. yet to be recovered. F custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. Moreso, it is well settled proposition of secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. The powers of anticipatory bail are extra ordinary and the same are to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstanc the Court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation, possibility of applicant fleeing from justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case f such grant to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence. The Court has also to see that an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as inroad in the normal legal procedure of criminal cases by Court. The custodial interrogation of a suspected person is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 482 of BNSS. while exercisin granted as a matter of rule and has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extra ordinary remedy. In the present case, no such e exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. CRM-M No.20094 of 2025 have been attributed to him. The weapons used in the occurrence yet to be recovered. For conducting thorough investigation in the matter, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. Moreso, it is well settled law that arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. The powers of anticipatory bail are extra ordinary and the same are to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation, possibility of applicant fleeing from justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case f such grant to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an The Court has also to see that an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as inroad in the normal legal procedure of criminal cases by he custodial interrogation of a suspected person is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 482 of BNSS. while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule and has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extra ordinary remedy. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. M No.20094 of 2025 -3- The weapons used in the occurrence are or conducting thorough investigation in the matter, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. Moreso, it is well settled law that arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. The powers of anticipatory bail are extra ordinary and the same are to be exercised es. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation, possibility of applicant fleeing from justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail as such grant to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an The Court has also to see that an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as inroad in the normal legal procedure of criminal cases by the trial he custodial interrogation of a suspected person is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 482 of BNSS. The Court must be circumspect g such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule and has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extra ordinary xceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be e or conducting thorough investigation in the matter, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. Moreso, it is well settled law that arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. The powers of anticipatory bail are extra ordinary and the same are to be exercised es. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation, possibility of applicant fleeing from justice and or grant of anticipatory bail as such grant to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an The Court has also to see that an order of anticipatory bail should not the trial he custodial interrogation of a suspected person is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a The Court must be circumspect g such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule and has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extra ordinary xceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be Jyoti 2025.04.09 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7. It is, not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case 09.04.2025 Jyoti-IV CRM-M No.20094 of 2025 It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No M No.20094 of 2025 -4- however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case. (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No. Yes/No however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall Jyoti 2025.04.09 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document