CRM-M-32565- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT GURJEET SINGH AND OTHERS STATE OF PUNJAB 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full pronounced 5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment and reasons thereof. CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Mr. Prince Pal Singh, Advocate Petition qua petitioner No.1 and 2 dismissed on 02.06.2026. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab Mr. Kunwar Rajan, Advocate for the complainant (through video conferencing) **** MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. The 482 of Bharatiya of anticipatory registered under Sections 109, 118(1), 115(2), 191(3), 190 of Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) -2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH GURJEET SINGH AND OTHERS Versus PUNJAB date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment and reasons thereof. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Imaan Singh Khara, Advocate and Mr. Prince Pal Singh, Advocate for the Petition qua petitioner No.1 and 2 dismissed on 02.06.2026. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab Mr. Kunwar Rajan, Advocate for the complainant (through video conferencing) **** MANISHA BATRA, J. The instant petition has been filed of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) bail in case arising out of DDR No.43 dated 31.10.2025 registered under Sections 109, 118(1), 115(2), 191(3), 190 of Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) (Section 109 of BNS deleted later on and IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-32565-2026 (O&M) ... Petitioners ...Respondent date when the judgment is reserved 20.07.2026 The date when the judgment is pronounced 23.07.2026 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 23.07.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is judgment is Full The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA and for the petitioners Petition qua petitioner No.1 and 2 dismissed on 02.06.2026. Mr. Kunwar Rajan, Advocate for the complainant has been filed by the petitioners under Section Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant DDR No.43 dated 31.10.2025 registered under Sections 109, 118(1), 115(2), 191(3), 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya (Section 109 of BNS deleted later on and s ...Respondent under Section for grant DDR No.43 dated 31.10.2025 Bharatiya Nyaya (Section 109 of BNS deleted later on and AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.23 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-32565- Section 117(2) of BNS added later on) at Police Station Sadar Sri Muktsar Sahib, District Sri Muktsar Sahib in FIR No.186 dated 31.10.2025 registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 191(3), 190, 324(4) of BNS (Section 109 of BNS deleted later on) at Police Station Sadar Sri Muktsar Sahib, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. Petition qua petit 02.06.2026. 2. The aforementioned FIR statement recorded therein that on 29.10.2025 Singh, driver of his truck and the accused Malkit Singh. Bagha Singh had telephonically informed about this fact to Yadwinder Singh Singh had proceeded in their Scorpio vehicle towards the grain market where his driver was present. The accused Harsimran Singh, Karanbir Singh, Lovepreet Singh, Somjit Singh and Angrej Singh started chasing their vehicle and reached at the petrol pump, damaged the Scorpio come back to his house Jasbir Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, Jalandh towards grain market in i Singh, Malkit Singh and Harsi over their Scorpio car opened an assault with their respective weapons and caused injuries to Jaswinder Singh, Jalan -2026 (O&M) 2 Section 117(2) of BNS added later on) at Police Station Sadar Sri Muktsar b, District Sri Muktsar Sahib in FIR No.186 dated 31.10.2025 registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 191(3), 190, 324(4) of BNS (Section 109 of BNS deleted later on) at Police Station Sadar Sri Muktsar Sahib, District Sri Muktsar Petition qua petitioner No.1 and 2, was dismissed vide order dated The aforementioned FIR No.186 was registered on the basis of statement recorded by Yadwinder Singh @ Yadu Bath therein that on 29.10.2025, a verbal altercation had t Singh, driver of his truck and the accused Malkit Singh. Bagha Singh had telephonically informed about this fact to his uncle Yadwinder Singh alongwith his cousin brothers Simranjit Singh and Lovepree Singh had proceeded in their Scorpio vehicle towards the grain market where his driver was present. The accused Harsimran Singh, Karanbir Singh, Lovepreet Singh, Somjit Singh and Angrej Singh started chasing their vehicle and reached at the petrol pump, where they had stopped for re damaged the Scorpio car of Yadwinder Singh alongwith his cousin brothers had come back to his house, out of fear. Some time thereafter, Jasbir Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, Jalandhar Singh and Jaspinder Singh had gone towards grain market in i-10 car. The accused Harmandeep Singh, Satwinder Singh, Malkit Singh and Harsimran Singh were present there, who Scorpio car on them. Thereafter, they made an exhortat opened an assault with their respective weapons and caused injuries to Jaswinder Singh, Jalandhar Singh, Jasbir Singh and Yadwinder Singh Section 117(2) of BNS added later on) at Police Station Sadar Sri Muktsar b, District Sri Muktsar Sahib in FIR No.186 dated 31.10.2025 registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 191(3), 190, 324(4) of BNS (Section 109 of BNS deleted later on) at Police Station Sadar Sri Muktsar Sahib, District Sri Muktsar ioner No.1 and 2, was dismissed vide order dated was registered on the basis of by Yadwinder Singh @ Yadu Bath-petitioner No.3, alleging a verbal altercation had taken place between Bagha Singh, driver of his truck and the accused Malkit Singh. Bagha Singh had his uncle Jasbir Singh. On hearing so, alongwith his cousin brothers Simranjit Singh and Lovepreet Singh had proceeded in their Scorpio vehicle towards the grain market where his driver was present. The accused Harsimran Singh, Karanbir Singh, Lovepreet Singh, Somjit Singh and Angrej Singh started chasing their vehicle and reached where they had stopped for re-fuelling the vehicle. They had alongwith his cousin brothers had ome time thereafter, Yadwinder Singh, ar Singh and Jaspinder Singh had gone 10 car. The accused Harmandeep Singh, Satwinder mran Singh were present there, who tried to run . Thereafter, they made an exhortation and opened an assault with their respective weapons and caused injuries to dhar Singh, Jasbir Singh and Yadwinder Singh. They too Section 117(2) of BNS added later on) at Police Station Sadar Sri Muktsar b, District Sri Muktsar Sahib in FIR No.186 dated 31.10.2025 registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 191(3), 190, 324(4) of BNS (Section 109 of BNS deleted later on) at Police Station Sadar Sri Muktsar Sahib, District Sri Muktsar ioner No.1 and 2, was dismissed vide order dated was registered on the basis of petitioner No.3, alleging aken place between Bagha Singh, driver of his truck and the accused Malkit Singh. Bagha Singh had . On hearing so, t Singh had proceeded in their Scorpio vehicle towards the grain market where his driver was present. The accused Harsimran Singh, Karanbir Singh, Lovepreet Singh, Somjit Singh and Angrej Singh started chasing their vehicle and reached fuelling the vehicle. They had alongwith his cousin brothers had Yadwinder Singh, ar Singh and Jaspinder Singh had gone 10 car. The accused Harmandeep Singh, Satwinder tried to run ion and opened an assault with their respective weapons and caused injuries to . They too AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.23 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-32565- sustained some injuries at the hands of the members of the complainant group. The complainant 3. On a member of the opposite group recorded his statement alleging that on 29.10.2025, the present petitioners being armed with weapons a by the co-accused named therein had opened an assault upon them and had caused injuries. He alleged that Yadwinder Singh (petitioner No.3) had struck a blow with baseball bat on his head, thereby inflicting a grievous injury, whereas the remaining had extended beatings to him. The petitioner Simranjeet Singh made an exhortation, the petitioner Gurjeet Singh had struck a blow with kappa injuring his right cheek. All the petitioner person of Malkit Singh a complainant. On clamour being raised, the assailants had fled away after damaging their vehicle. A cross have been initiated and are underway. Apprehending their moved a joint application for grant of pre by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide order dated 18.05.2026. 4. It is argued by lear they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is a case of version and cross version. The FIR of petitioner No.3 No specific role has been attributed to the petitioners -2026 (O&M) 3 sustained some injuries at the hands of the members of the complainant group. The complainant Yadwinder Singh prayed for taking action in the matter. the same day when the FIR was registered, Harmandeep Singh, a member of the opposite group recorded his statement alleging that on 29.10.2025, the present petitioners being armed with weapons a accused named therein had opened an assault upon them and had caused injuries. He alleged that Yadwinder Singh (petitioner No.3) had struck a blow with baseball bat on his head, thereby inflicting a grievous injury, whereas maining had extended beatings to him. The petitioner Simranjeet Singh made an exhortation, the petitioner Gurjeet Singh had struck a blow with kappa injuring his right cheek. All the petitioners had also inflicted injuries on the person of Malkit Singh and Harsimran Singh, had tried to abduct the complainant. On clamour being raised, the assailants had fled away after damaging their vehicle. A cross-case was registered. Investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. Apprehending their joint application for grant of pre-arrest bail which has been dismissed by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide order dated It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners No.3 t they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is a case of version and cross version. The FIR No.186 had already been registered on the basis of statement of petitioner No.3-Yadwinder Singh against the members of the opposite party. cific role has been attributed to the petitioners sustained some injuries at the hands of the members of the complainant group. Yadwinder Singh prayed for taking action in the matter. as registered, Harmandeep Singh, a member of the opposite group recorded his statement alleging that on 29.10.2025, the present petitioners being armed with weapons and accompanied accused named therein had opened an assault upon them and had caused injuries. He alleged that Yadwinder Singh (petitioner No.3) had struck a blow with baseball bat on his head, thereby inflicting a grievous injury, whereas maining had extended beatings to him. The petitioner Simranjeet Singh made an exhortation, the petitioner Gurjeet Singh had struck a blow with kappa had also inflicted injuries on the nd Harsimran Singh, had tried to abduct the complainant. On clamour being raised, the assailants had fled away after case was registered. Investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners arrest bail which has been dismissed by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide order dated ned counsel for the petitioners No.3 to 5 that they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is a case of version and cross- had already been registered on the basis of statement Yadwinder Singh against the members of the opposite party. cific role has been attributed to the petitioners No.3 to 5. Neither any sustained some injuries at the hands of the members of the complainant group. as registered, Harmandeep Singh, a member of the opposite group recorded his statement alleging that on nd accompanied accused named therein had opened an assault upon them and had caused injuries. He alleged that Yadwinder Singh (petitioner No.3) had struck a blow with baseball bat on his head, thereby inflicting a grievous injury, whereas maining had extended beatings to him. The petitioner Simranjeet Singh made an exhortation, the petitioner Gurjeet Singh had struck a blow with kappa had also inflicted injuries on the nd Harsimran Singh, had tried to abduct the complainant. On clamour being raised, the assailants had fled away after case was registered. Investigation proceedings arrest, the petitioners arrest bail which has been dismissed by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide order dated that - had already been registered on the basis of statement Yadwinder Singh against the members of the opposite party. . Neither any AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.23 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-32565- specific injury has been attributed to them. The subject offences are not made out against them. The petitioners were not the aggressors. They are ready to join investigation. The to be effected from them. It is, thus, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the a nature as by forming an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object thereof, they had opened an assault upon the members of the opposite party and voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous inj injury No.1 sustained by Malkit Singh has been opined to be grievous in nature and dangerous to life. There is no exceptional or extra foe extending benefit of pre of the petitioners is required for conducting thorough investigation in the matter. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 7. The petitioners are alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co thereof, are further alleged to have voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries on the person of Harmandeep Singh and Malkit Singh, members of the opposite party. Though the injuries as sustained by victim Harmandeep Singh are opined to be simple in nature but one of the injury sustained by Malkit Singh -2026 (O&M) 4 specific injury has been attributed to them. The subject offences are not made out against them. The petitioners were not the aggressors. They are ready to join investigation. Their custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from them. It is, thus, argued that the petition deserves to be Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature as by forming an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object thereof, they had opened an assault upon the members of the opposite party and voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous inj injury No.1 sustained by Malkit Singh has been opined to be grievous in nature and dangerous to life. There is no exceptional or extra foe extending benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Custodial of the petitioners is required for conducting thorough investigation in the matter. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel at considerable length. The petitioners are alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object further alleged to have voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous n the person of Harmandeep Singh and Malkit Singh, members of the opposite party. Though the injuries as sustained by victim Harmandeep Singh are opined to be simple in nature but one of the injury sustained by Malkit Singh specific injury has been attributed to them. The subject offences are not made out against them. The petitioners were not the aggressors. They are ready to ir custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from them. It is, thus, argued that the petition deserves to be Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the llegations against the petitioners are serious in nature as by forming an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object thereof, they had opened an assault upon the members of the opposite party and voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries to them. The injury No.1 sustained by Malkit Singh has been opined to be grievous in nature and dangerous to life. There is no exceptional or extra-ordinary circumstance t bail to the petitioners. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required for conducting thorough investigation in the matter. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel The petitioners are alleged to have formed membership of an accused and in prosecution of common object further alleged to have voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous n the person of Harmandeep Singh and Malkit Singh, members of the opposite party. Though the injuries as sustained by victim Harmandeep Singh are opined to be simple in nature but one of the injury sustained by Malkit Singh specific injury has been attributed to them. The subject offences are not made out against them. The petitioners were not the aggressors. They are ready to ir custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from them. It is, thus, argued that the petition deserves to be Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the llegations against the petitioners are serious in nature as by forming an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object thereof, they had opened an assault upon the members of the opposite uries to them. The injury No.1 sustained by Malkit Singh has been opined to be grievous in nature ordinary circumstance ogation of the petitioners is required for conducting thorough investigation in the matter. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel The petitioners are alleged to have formed membership of an accused and in prosecution of common object further alleged to have voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous n the person of Harmandeep Singh and Malkit Singh, members of the opposite party. Though the injuries as sustained by victim Harmandeep Singh are opined to be simple in nature but one of the injury sustained by Malkit Singh AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.23 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-32565- has been opined to be grievous stage. Denial of custodial interrogation of the petitioner to the investigating agency would certainly leave many glaring loopholes and gaps, thereby adversely affecting the investigation since a person couch safety of pre-arrest bail would certainly not disclose all the facts within his knowledge. It is well settled proposition of law that the powers for grant of pre arrest bail are required to be exercised in exceptional circumstances, wher peculiar facts of this case do not warrant any such exercise. Taking into consideration the discussion as made above, this ground to allow the petition. Accordingly, the 8. It is made clear the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 9. Since the main petition has been any, is rendered infructuo 23.07.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 5 has been opined to be grievous and dangerous Denial of custodial interrogation of the petitioner to the investigating agency would certainly leave many glaring loopholes and gaps, thereby adversely affecting the investigation since a person couch arrest bail would certainly not disclose all the facts within his knowledge. It is well settled proposition of law that the powers for grant of pre arrest bail are required to be exercised in exceptional circumstances, wher peculiar facts of this case do not warrant any such exercise. Taking into consideration the discussion as made above, this ground to allow the petition. Accordingly, the petition It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been dismissed any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No to life. The case is at nascent Denial of custodial interrogation of the petitioner to the investigating agency would certainly leave many glaring loopholes and gaps, thereby adversely affecting the investigation since a person couched in comparative arrest bail would certainly not disclose all the facts within his knowledge. It is well settled proposition of law that the powers for grant of pre- arrest bail are required to be exercised in exceptional circumstances, whereas the peculiar facts of this case do not warrant any such exercise. Taking into consideration the discussion as made above, this Court finds no compelling petition is dismissed. that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing dismissed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No to life. The case is at nascent Denial of custodial interrogation of the petitioner to the investigating agency would certainly leave many glaring loopholes and gaps, thereby ed in comparative arrest bail would certainly not disclose all the facts within his - eas the peculiar facts of this case do not warrant any such exercise. Taking into Court finds no compelling that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing , pending application, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.23 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.