CRM-M-32318-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 105 CRM-M-32318-2026 Decided on: 08.07.2026 BARINDERBIR SINGH @ BARINDER SINGH …...Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR …...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Fateh Singh Bhullar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. SPS Sandhu, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. 1. Present petition for pre-arrest bail is the second petition filed by the petitioner, under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’, in case, arising out of FIR No.71 dated 18.05.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 125 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (corresponding to section 336 of IPC) and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, Police Station Jhabal District Tarn Taran. 2. On 01.06.2026, following order was passed:- “Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Ranjodh Singh @ Jodha’ hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the complainant that on 17.05.2025 at about 7.20 P.M. when he was going to his village Sohal on his motorcycle, his bike was intercepted by a car bearing registration No.DL-8-CY-0292. According to complainant the driver of above mentioned car was ‘Jarmanjit Singh’ and the petitioner was on navigator seat. According to complainant after stopping his motorcycle, the petitioner came out of his car and fired two gun-shots in the air with his riffle. As per complainant, when he fled towards the fields he was chased by them. LAVISHA 2026.07.08 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-32318-2026 2 It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. Notice of motion. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. Eklavya Darshi, DAG, Punjab, has appeared on behalf of respondentState. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. Mr. SPS Sandhju, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent No.2. He has filed a Power of Attorney. The same be taken on record. Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, and that there is no allegation regarding harm or injury to the complainant. It has also been contended that the parties have reached to a compromise, and that otherwise also the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate and nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner. The learned State counsel being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has controverted the above mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel in view of gravity of offence, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. It has also been contended that to recover the weapon of offence, custodial interrogation of petitioner is necessary. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has not opposed the bail application and he has simply stated that the parties have already reached to a compromise. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision:- i) that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate; ii) that the maximum punishment prescribed for the commission of offence is imprisonment up to 7 years; iii) that the recovery of weapon of offence can be facilitated by issuing a direction to the petitioner to join the investigation of this case; iv) that a relevant fact, to be taken into consideration, is that the petitioner was arrested on 19.04.2026, in some other case and he continued to be in custody till 20.05.2026. The first application for anticipatory bail, filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.05.2026, and thus, w.e.f. 11.05.2026 till 20.05.2026 LAVISHA 2026.07.08 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-32318-2026 3 no protection was available to the petitioner (who was in custody in some other case), but despite that he was not taken into custody in the present case; v) that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not likely to produce a fruitful result; vi) that the investigation and trial are not likely to be concluded in near future; vii) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose; viii) that there is nothing on record to show that while on anticipatory bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and ix) that there is nothing on record to show that while on anticipatory bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the investigation. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the above mentioned factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled to interim anticipatory bail. Thus, it is hereby ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of arresting officer. However, in the meantime, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the arresting officer. He shall also abide by the conditions as specified under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. List on 08.07.2026. Let status report and detailed reply, if any, be filed by the State by next date. To be shown in urgent list.” 3. Continuing his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in compliance of the order dated 01.06.2026, passed by this Court, petitioner has joined the investigation, and has fully co-operated. Therefore, he prays for confirmation of the said interim anticipatory bail order. 4. Learned State counsel on instructions, confirms the said averment made by counsel for the petitioner of joining the investigation by the petitioner, and submits that as of now, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. LAVISHA 2026.07.08 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-32318-2026 4 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Since, petitioner has already joined the investigation and custodial interrogation is no more required; ad-interim bail order dated 01.06.2026, passed by this Court is hereby made absolute. Accordingly, present petition is allowed. However, petitioner 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, petition stands disposed of. However, present order would be subject to the submission of passport of the petitioner to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses, within a period of one week from today. Otherwise, he would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport. It is clarified that in case, aforesaid condition is not complied with, this order would be considered as non est automatically. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 08.07.2026 Lavisha Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO LAVISHA 2026.07.08 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh