201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-30189-2025 Date of Decision: June 26, 2025 Kuljeet Singh …Pe00oner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. T.S. Hundal, Advocate for the peoner. Mr. Animesh Sharma, Addl. A.G., Punjab. DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) Prayer in this peon under Secon 482 BNSS, 2023 is for grant of pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.69 dated 15.03.2025, under Secons 126(2), 140(1), 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 191(3), 190 of BNS [Secon 111(2) added later on], besides Secons 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Staon City South Moga, District Moga. 2. FIR was lodged on the complaint of Vicky S/o Rajinder Kumar, as per which on 11.03.2025 at about 10-11 p.m., on his way to home when he reached near Diggi Wala Mohalla near Cold Store, Moga, peoner along with co-accused Sukhwinder Singh, Lovepreet Singh, Karan Singh etc. waylaid him. All the assailants including the peoner were armed with different kinds of weapons. Peoner was holding a pistol. All the assailants forcibly threw the complainant in the car and aAer abducng took him to railway lines, where he was caused numerous injuries. Peoner is aBributed to have struck blow with the buB of the pistol to complainant, and undressed him and an obscene video was made and then he was thrown out in the park of the Civil Hospital. Complainant was also threatened that in case he got any case registered, he and his brother would be caused harm. Sarita Rani 2025.06.26 16:09 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CRM-M-30189-2025 - 2 - 2025:PHHC:076830 3. Learned counsel for the peoner contends that peoner has been falsely implicated and the only role aBributed to him is to have given blow with buB of the pistol, which did not result any injury. 4. Refung the bail peon, learned State counsel submits that bail peon of co-accused Lovepreet Singh has already been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 12.05.2025 passed in CRM- M-20162-2025. It is further submiBed that recovery of the pistol is to be effected and so his custodial interrogaon is required. 5. Having considered submissions of both the sides and without commenng anything on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that considering the nature of serious allegaons against the peoner, who along with co-accused not only abducted the complainant, but also caused injuries to him and made obscene video, he does not deserve to be granted the benefit of pre-arrest bail, as his custodial interrogaon may also be necessary for further invesgaon. Dismissed. June 26, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.06.26 16:09 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order