CRM-M-30700-2025 (O&M) -1- 216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-30700-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.07.2025 Surjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Pardeep Kumar Kapila, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Amit Thakur, Advocate for the complainant. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 1. This is the second petition preferred under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter ‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail in the case stemming from FIR No.46 dated 09.06.2024 registered under Sections 307, 324, 323, 341, 379-B, 148/149 IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, Section 379-B IPC deleted and Sections 379- B(2), 326, 325 IPC added subsequently vide rapat No.19 dated 06.08.2024, at Police Station Mallanwala, District Ferozepur. 2. Briefly, the facts, as alleged, are that on 09.06.2024, at about 9/10 AM, the complainant-Sukhjinder Singh was ploughing the land taken on lease from one Lakhwinder Singh then Kulwinder Singh, Balwinder Singh, Sohan Singh and Karanvir Singh arrived at the spot and started hurling abuses at him. Lakhwinder Singh also arrived at the spot and stopped them from doing so, Neha 2025.07.08 18:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30700-2025 (O&M) -2- causing them to leave. Thereafter, Lakhwinder Singh dropped the complainant at the chowk and while he was going towards his house, Kulwinder Singh, Balwinder Singh, Gurmit Singh, armed with .315 bore rifle, Sohan Singh and Karanvir Singh along with 7-8 other persons arrived in two cars and surrounded him. Shots were fired from the .315 bore rifle and Kulwinder Singh and Balwinder Singh attacked the complainant with an intention to kill him. The assailants also snatched his mobile phone as well as Rs.28,000/- carried by him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner is a mere agricultural labourer and has neither been named in the FIR(supra) nor has an overt act been attributed to him. Further, Section 307 IPC has been invoked by the police without obtaining an opinion from the doctor regarding the nature of injuries allegedly inflicted. The petitioner has only been implicated in the present case because he was seen in the video footage obtained from the CCTV cameras. Lastly, during the pendency of the present case, an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties. 4. Per contra learned State counsel submits that the CCTV footage makes it clear that the petitioner was armed with a .315 bore rifle during the incident. The MLR of the complainant shows 12 injuries on the person of the complainant and it was stated that injuries No.7,8,9, and 10 were inflicted by a sharp-edged weapon while the remaining were inflicted by a blunt weapon. Additionally, co-accused Kulwinder Singh suffered a disclosure statement stating that the petitioner, amongst others, attacked the complainant with deadly weapons on his instigation. Neha 2025.07.08 18:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30700-2025 (O&M) -3- 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner was nominated as an accused vide Rapat No.16 dated 16.06.2024 on the statement of one Bhupinder Singh, recorded during investigation. The petitioner was seen to be armed with a .315 bore rifle in the CCTV footage obtained by the police. Moreover, the status report dated 30.06.2025 states that out of the 12 injuries sustained by the complainant, injuries No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10 were declared grievous in nature while injuries No.7,11,12 were declared to be simple. Furthermore, the petitioner is involved in 9 other FIRs, some of which also pertain to Section 307 IPC as well as Arms Act, 1959. Therefore, owing to the gravity of the matter as well as the lack of clean antecedents of the petitioner, it appears that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required. 6. In view of the discussion above, this Court does not find it apposite to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 03.07.2025 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Neha 2025.07.08 18:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document