CRM-M-27676-2025 - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 215 Date of decision: 04.09.2025 1. CRM-M-27676-2025 RANJIT SINGH ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent 2. CRM-M-31757-2025 JASPREET SINGH ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present : Mr. D.R. Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Manjinder Singh Bhullar, DAG, Punjab. SANJAY VASHISTH. J.(Oral) 1. This order shall dispose of two petitions i.e. CRM-M-27676-2025 and CRM-M-31757-2025, as the same have emanated out of the same occurrence. 2. Prayer in these petitions, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, who have been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- Name of Petitioner (s) FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station District RANJIT SINGH & JASPREET SINGH 52 13.03.2025 109, 333, 115(2), 118(1), 61(2), 324(2), Kotwali Patiala AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2025.09.05 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CRM-M-27676-2025 - 2- 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023 (Sections 117(2), 118(2) added later on and Section 109 revoked) 3. In CRM-M-27676-2025 on 20.05.2025, following order was passed:- “Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- Name and age of Petitioner (s) FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station Distric t RANJIT SINGH, aged 33 years 52 13.03.2025 109, 333, 115(2), 118(1), 61(2), 324(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023 (Sections 117(2), 118(2) added later on and Section 109 revoked) Kotwali Patiala 2. Contention of the petitioner’s counsel is that there are total 09 accused in the case, who were named in the FIR itself. However, initially petitioner has not been named therein. Even on involving the petitioner subsequently, no specific role has been attributed, and has been nominated after 31 days of the incident. Thus, prays for grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present case. 3. Notice of motion. 4. On advance notice, learned State counsel puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent – State, and seeks some time to respond to the submissions addressed by learned counsel opposite, after seeking AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2025.09.05 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CRM-M-27676-2025 - 3- instructions. And, in case of necessity, to file status report. 5. Adjourned to 28.07.2025. 6. In the meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating Agency. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on ad-interim bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall also be abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.). 7. Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over his passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport. It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of the Court. “ 4. In CRM-M-31757-2025 on 19.06.2025, following order was passed:- “The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case registered against him vide FIR No.52 dated 13.03.2025 under Sections 109, 333, 115(2), 118(1), 61(2), 324(2), 191(3), 190 of BNSS 2023 (Sections 117(2), 118(2) added later on and Section 109 of BNSS revoked) at Police Station Kotwali, District Patiala. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and had been named in the supplementary statement that had been recorded after 31 days of the registration of the FIR. Section 109 of BNSS stands deleted and the FIR is now under Sections 117(2), 118(2) and certain other Sections of BNSS, 2023. He further contends that no specific injury had been attributed to the petitioner and the coaccused/Ranjit Singh had been granted the concession of interim anticipatory bail. Therefore, no case for custodial interrogation was made out. AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2025.09.05 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CRM-M-27676-2025 - 4- Mr. Mayur Karkra, the learned counsel representing the complainant, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner was seen in the CCTV footage and therefore, the offence stands established against him. Notice of motion for 28.07.2025. Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab, present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the State. In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to appear before the SHO/Investigating Officer to join investigation and in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of SHO/Investigating Agency, subject to the following conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS: (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court and shall surrender his passport, if any. Meanwhile, the State is directed to file an affidavit/reply as to the exact role of the petitioner and his co-accused alongwith the details of pending FIRs, if any, on or before the next date of hearing. To be heard alongwith CRM-M-27676-2025.” 5. Continuing his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in compliance of the orders dated 20.05.2025 & 19.06.2025, passed by this Court, petitioners have joined the investigation, and has fully co-operated. Therefore, he prays for confirmation of the said interim anticipatory bail orders. 4. Learned State counsel on instructions from the official respondent confirms the said averment made by counsel for the petitioners of joining the investigation on 02.07.2025 by the petitioners, and submits that as of now, custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not required for the purpose of AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2025.09.05 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CRM-M-27676-2025 - 5- investigation. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Since, petitioners have already joined the investigation and custodial interrogation is no more required; ad-interim bail orders dated 20.05.2025 & 19.06.2025, passed by this Court is hereby made absolute. Accordingly, present petitions are allowed. However, petitioners shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the terms and conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. 7. Accordingly, petitions stand disposed of. 8. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case. (SANJAY VASHISTH) 04.09.2025 JUDGE amandeep Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2025.09.05 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment