CRM-M-36183-2026 (O&M) -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (107) CRM-M-36183-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:09.07.2026 KEWAL SINGH … Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Sidhant Vermani, Advocate for the petitioner (through video conferencing). Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant. -.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral) 1. The instant 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 the event of the petitioner’s arrest in the cross-version recorded vide GD No. 46 dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure P-2), registered under Sections 109, 125, 333, 305, 118(1), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (corresponding to Sections 307, 336, 452, 380, 324, 146, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860), arising out of the main case registered vide FIR No. 260 dated 21.10.2025 under Sections 103, 125, 118(1), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.09 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36183-2026 (O&M) -:2:- Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (corresponding to Sections 302, 336, 146, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860), at Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar (Annexure P-1). 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that FIR No. 260 dated 21.10.2025 came to be registered on the statement of Jasbir Singh alleging that on the intervening night of 20.10.2025, the accused persons, armed with deadly weapons and firearms, formed an unlawful assembly, assaulted the complainant party, caused multiple injuries and, during the course of the occurrence, Ranjit Singh allegedly inflicted a gandasa blow on the head of Hari Singh, resulting in his death, while the remaining accused allegedly participated in the occurrence and fired gunshots in the air. 2.1. During the course of investigation, a cross-version was recorded vide GD No. 46 dated 13.11.2025 on the statement of Rachhpal Singh son of late Kuldeep Singh, one of the accused in the main FIR. According to the cross-version, the complainant party in the main case was the aggressor and, armed with deadly weapons and firearms, trespassed into their house, caused injuries to Ranjit Singh and others, removed the DVR and assaulted the family members. It was further alleged that the injury sustained by Hari Singh was caused by Rachhpal Singh in the exercise of his right of private defence while attempting to save himself and his family members. On the basis of the said allegations, the present cross-case came to be registered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present cross-version is nothing but a counterblast to the main FIR, which pertains GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.09 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36183-2026 (O&M) -:3:- to the homicidal death of Hari Singh. It is submitted that the petitioner belong to the complainant side in the main case and, despite the registration of the FIR, no effective investigation was conducted initially, compelling them to approach the higher police authorities by way of repeated representations. According to learned counsel, only thereafter, the present cross-version came to be registered at the instance of the opposite party with an oblique motive to exert pressure upon the petitioners and to derail the investigation in the main case. It is further submitted that even the Daily Diary Report preceding the registration of the cross-version recorded that the allegations required verification, yet another GD was recorded on the very same day leading to registration of the cross-version, thereby prima facie indicating procedural irregularity and mala fides. Learned counsel further contends that one of the co-accused, Jasbir Singh, has already approached this Court seeking transfer of investigation to an independent agency alleging bias on the part of the local police, wherein a status report has already been called for. 3.1. It is also argued that the allegations levelled in the cross- version are vague and omnibus in nature. No specific overt act or injury has been attributed to the present petitioner and, even as per the prosecution case, no grievous injury is alleged to have been inflicted by them. The only allegation against the petitioner is that of his presence at the place of occurrence. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and that his custodial interrogation is neither warranted nor necessary. Accordingly, prayer has been made for grant of the concession of anticipatory bail. GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.09 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36183-2026 (O&M) -:4:- 4. Notice of motion. 4.1. Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, accepts notice on behalf of the State of Punjab whereas Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, learned counsel, has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and filed his memorandum of appearance, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. 4.2. Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has vehemently opposed the present petition. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioner is grave and serious in nature and that the investigation is still in progress. It is further contended that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for a fair and effective investigation, to ascertain the role of each accused and to unearth the true facts and circumstances of the occurrence. 4.3. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been specifically named in the cross-version and that the mere plea of false implication cannot be a ground for grant of anticipatory bail at this stage. Learned State counsel also points out that the petition for anticipatory bail filed by a similarly situated co-accused has already been dismissed by this Court. It is, therefore, prayed that no case for grant of the concession of anticipatory bail is made out and the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper book minutely with their able assistance. 6. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon a prima facie appraisal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner has been specifically attributed the role of firing a gunshot from GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.09 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36183-2026 (O&M) -:5:- his pistol, causing a firearm injury to the brother of the complainant. The allegations, thus, are neither vague nor omnibus but disclose a specific overt act attributed to the petitioner. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the accusations, the manner in which the alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place and the specific role assigned to the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that his custodial interrogation is imperative for a fair, effective and meaningful investigation. The recovery of the weapon of offence, verification of the prosecution version, and the ascertainment of the complete facts and circumstances surrounding the occurrence cannot be effectively carried out if the petitioner is granted the protective umbrella of anticipatory bail. 6.1. It is trite that the relief of anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretionary remedy and is not to be granted as a matter of course, particularly where the allegations disclose the commission of serious and heinous offences involving the use of firearms. At the stage of consideration of a petition for anticipatory bail, this Court is not expected to meticulously appreciate the evidence or adjudicate upon the correctness of the rival versions, which are matters to be examined during the course of investigation and trial. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the prayer for anticipatory bail preferred by a similarly situated co-accused has already been declined. Keeping in view the principle of parity, coupled with the seriousness of the allegations and the requirement of custodial interrogation, no exceptional circumstance has been pointed out warranting a departure from the said view. GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.09 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36183-2026 (O&M) -:6:- 6.2. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice either party during the course of investigation or trial, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. 7. Consequent upon the final disposal of the main matter, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No further orders are required to be passed thereon. ( 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