CRM-M-31857-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-31857-2025 Reserved on: 17.09.2025 Pronounced on: 24.09.2025 GURPREET SINGH ALIAS GOPI ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB …RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr.Rahi Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, DAG, Punjab. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 158 06.12.2024 Khilchian, District Amritsar (Amritsar Rural) 115(2)/118(2)/351(2)/ 191(3)/190 of BNS, 2023 1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above have come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail. 2. Per paragraph 17 of the bail petition and para 10 of the reply, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. 3. Vide order dated 06.06.2025, the petitioner was granted interim bail by this Court, which is continuing till date. 4. The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply dated 26.08.2025 filed by the State, which reads as follows: “2.That the brief and relevant facts of the case are that aforesaid FIR No. 158 dated 06.12.2024 was registered on the basis of the statement of Loverjit Singh alias Lover son of Gurdev Singh, who had alleged therein that he runs a shop in main market Khilehian in the name of Sardar Jewellers and Akashdeep Singh runs an AC Fridge shop near his shop, where Jitpreet Singh works as an AC Mechanic. He further alleged that on 06.12.2024 at about 01:30 PM, he was standing outside his shop and in the meantime, Fatehdeep Singh armed with a datar, Harpreet Singh armed with a datar, Johnjoy armed with a datar and Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi (petitioner) along with two unidentified persons armed with datar, came at the shop of Akashdeep Singh and started abusing him and the co-accused Harpreet Singh caused injuries on the right arm and Renu Bala 2025.09.24 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-31857-2025 -2- right leg with two consecutive blows of datar and the co-accused Fatehdeep Singh and Johnjoy caused injuries on right arm, shoulder and other body parts of Jitpreet Singh with reverse blows of their respective datars and when Raminder Singh, uncle of Akashdeep Singh came forward to rescue Akashdeep Singh, the unidentified persons caused injuries on his back with reverse blows of datar. He further alleged that the co-accused Harpreet Singh also tried to attack upon him with his datar but he escaped narrowly and he fired on the foot of the co-accused Harpreet Singh with his licensed weapon in his self defence and when the people started gathering over there, all the aforesaid accused fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. It was further alleged by him that the main cause of the incident was that all the aforesaid accused had earlier damaged their CCTV installed at their shops, due to which there was a dispute between them. The detailed facts mentioned by the complainant in his aforesaid statement has been reproduced in the true translation of the FIR No. 158 dated 06.12.2024attached with the petition as Annexure P-1, which may kindly be read as a part of this paragraph as same are not repeated for the sake of brevity.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and was not present at the spot at the time of the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that the injuries attributed to the petitioner are simple in nature, and no serious injury has been specifically attributed to him. Petitioner seeks bail in light of the same. The petitioner counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions including surrender of fire arms, if any. In case, he repeats and commits any offence where the sentence is more than 07 years, he would have no objection, if State files an application for cancellation of his bail. He further contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. 6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. 7. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows: “Role of the petitioner 6. That as per the version of the complainant Loverjit Singh alias Lover, the petitioner along with the other co-accused after forming an unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common object attacked upon Jitpreet Singh and Akashdeep Singh but no injury is attributed to the petitioner.” REASONING: 8. No specific injury or role has been attributed to petitioner. Petitioner was granted interim bail which is continuing till date and in the interregnum, there is no allegation that he hamper with the evidence or not joined the investigation, as such, no ground to discontinue the interim protection is made out, as such, same is made absolute subject to the condition mention in para No.9 of this order. Renu Bala 2025.09.24 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-31857-2025 -3- 9. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation within seven days of uploading this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Investigator. The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During the investigation, the petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc. 10. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. Interim order dated 06.06.2025 is made absolute. All the pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 24.09.2025 renubala Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No. Renu Bala 2025.09.24 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document