CRM-M-36841-2026 (O&M) -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (112) CRM-M-36841-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:09.07.2026 CHATARVEER SINGH @ KAMAL ARORA … Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Bhrigu Dutt Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Aneesh Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepinder Singh, Senior Advocate, Addl. A.G. Punjab along with Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Bhalla, Advocate for the complainant. Mr. Sarbuland Singh Mann, Advocate for the Municipal Corporation-Ludhiana. -.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral) 1. The present petition, being the first under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), has been filed seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in case having FIR No. 121 dated 12.06.2026, registered at Police Station Division No. 3, Police Commissionerate Ludhiana, under Sections 221, 132, 324(4), 352, 351(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 186, 353, 427, 504, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860), wherein offences under Sections 305 and 121(1) of the Bharatiya GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.09 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36841-2026 (O&M) -:2:- Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 380 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860), read with Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, were added subsequently. 2. Briefly stated, the aforesaid FIR came to be registered on the statement of the complainant, Parveen Kumar Singla, Chief Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, alleging that on 10.06.2026 at about 1:00 p.m., while he was present in his office, the petitioner, Chatarveer Singh @ Kamal Arora, Councillor of Ward No. 21, along with certain unidentified persons, entered his office and questioned the execution of street patchwork without his knowledge. It is alleged that despite being informed that the work had been undertaken with the approval of the concerned MLA, the petitioner became agitated, abused and manhandled the complainant, tore official documents lying on his table, and damaged the office furniture and other articles. It is further alleged that, upon being informed by the Record Keeper, the complainant found certain official files to be missing and suspected that the petitioner had taken them away. The occurrence is stated to have taken place in the presence of contractor Vimal Tandon, who was present in the office in connection with official work. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present FIR is a consequence of political vendetta. It is submitted that the petitioner, being a Municipal Corporator belonging to the Shiromani Akali Dal, the principal opposition party, has been falsely implicated at the behest of the local MLA belonging to the ruling AAP party. It is argued that the complainant, while acting in concert with the local MLA, GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.09 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36841-2026 (O&M) -:3:- deliberately obstructed developmental works in the petitioner's ward, and that the present FIR came to be registered after the petitioner lodged complaints before the Municipal Commissioner alleging favouritism and irregularities in the award of municipal contracts. It is further submitted that the offences under Sections 305 and 121(1) of the BNS, 2023 were subsequently added only to aggravate the nature of the case, as the offences originally invoked were either bailable or punishable with a comparatively lesser sentence. It is also contended that cognizance of the offence corresponding to Section 186 IPC cannot be taken in the absence of a complaint by the competent public servant in terms of law. 4. Notice of motion. 4.1. Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Mr. Brijeshwar Singh, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the complainant, whereas Mr. Sarbuland Singh Mann, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. Their respective memoranda of appearance and power of attorney are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. 4.2. Learned State counsel, duly assisted by learned counsel appearing for the complainant and the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, opposes the petition and submits that the petitioner, along with his associates, obstructed and assaulted a public servant while he was discharging his official duties, caused damage to public property and removed official records from the office. It is contended that the allegations are grave in nature and the custodial interrogation of the GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.09 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36841-2026 (O&M) -:4:- petitioner is essential for a fair, effective and unhindered investigation. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail and the present petition merits dismissal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the paper book with their able assistance. 6. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the accusations leveled against the petitioner are of an exceedingly grave nature. The petitioner, as an elected representative of the public, holds the responsible and dignified office of a Municipal Corporator. Yet, the gravamen of the allegations against him is that he criminalized an administrative dispute by assaulting a senior public servant on duty, obstructing him from discharging his public functions, and inter-alia, unlawfully removing official records of the Municipal Corporation. 6.1. While it is true that these allegations are currently at the stage of investigation and are yet to be proven at trial, the Court cannot lose sight of either the nature of the offenses or the influential status of the petitioner. In the context of prevailing socio-legal conditions where public officers frequently encounter threats, intimidation, and physical assaults, extending the equitable and extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail in a case of this magnitude would be unwarranted. Public servants must be insulated from extraneous pressure so they can discharge their statutory duties without fear or favour. Granting anticipatory bail under these circumstances would send a deleterious signal to society, thereby emboldening unruly elements and demoralizing the administrative GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.09 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36841-2026 (O&M) -:5:- machinery. Consequently, without expressing any definitive opinion on the ultimate merits of the case, this Court finds that the petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 7. In view of the fact that the principal matter stands finally adjudicated, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to these proceedings, shall also stand disposed of. No separate or further orders are required to be passed in respect thereof. ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 09.07.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.09 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document