Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 70902 (PNJ)

SAJAN @ PANNI v. STATE OF PUNJAB

CRM-M/33006/2025 · 2025-09-02

Sukhvinder Kaur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 215 CRM-M-33006-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.09.2025. Sajan @ Panni ...Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent. *** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR ....... Present: Mr. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner (through video conferencing). Mr. P.S. Pandher, AAG, Punjab. *** SUKHVINDER KAUR , J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.67 dated 13.05.2025, under Sections 126(2), 191(3), 190, 351(2), 324(6) of BNS and Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, registered at Police Station Division A, District Police Commissionerate, Amritsar. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution in brief is that the present FIR was registered on 12.05.2025 at about 9:15 P.M., on the statement of complainant Sandeep Salwan that the petitioner along with the others used to bring the liquor and sell the same in the retail market. The private contractor workers followed them and try to stop their vehicles but they did not allow them to overtake. The petitioner along with others armed with baseball bat, dattar and kirpans attacked the complainant's vehicle with kirpans and baseball bat and then the KOMAL 2025.09.02 17:30 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRM-M-33006-2025 (O&M) -2- complainant party ran away from the spot to save themselves. Accordingly, the FIR in question was registered against the petitioner and others. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he had not been named in the FIR. Though as per the allegations, the petitioner was armed with a baseball bat and has not been alleged to be armed with any fire arm weapon, however, to make the offence graver also levelled allegations of firing gun shots from the pistol. No specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner. He prayed that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and he is ready and willing to join the investigation and the present petition be allowed. Notice was issued in this case on 07.07.2025 and status report was called from the State, which was filed on 11.08.2025 in the Court and the same is taken on record. Learned State counsel opposed the petition and submitted that there are serious allegations qua the petitioner that while bringing illegal liquor on Auto Pickup along with other co-accused, when they were intercepted by the complainant and his accomplices, they damaged the Bolero vehicle of the complainant, chased his vehicle and also fired gun shots and as such he is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. Heard. No specific role or injury has been attributed to the petitioner. His name surfaced in the present case, as per the disclosure statement of co- accused Rohit (brother of the present petitioner). As custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for any purpose, so no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars. KOMAL 2025.09.02 17:30 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRM-M-33006-2025 (O&M) -3- Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on his furnishing bail/surety bonds, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/ Investigating Officer, subject to the conditions, as provided under Section 482(2) of BNSS. It will be open for the Investigating Officer to call the petitioner to join investigation, if so required, by issuing a written notice in this regard and he shall abide by the conditions mentioned in Section 482(2) of the BNSS. However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail application. (SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE 02.09.2025. Komal Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/ No Whether reportable? : Yes/ No KOMAL 2025.09.02 17:30 I attest to the accuracy of this document