CRM-M-26884-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 210-1 CRM-M-26884-2026 Decided on: 28.07.2026 SAHAB SINGH AND OTHERS …...Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA …...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: None for the petitioners. ASI Rajesh Kumar, IO present in the Court. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. On a call given by the Executive Committee of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, the Members of the Bar have suspended the work today, i.e. 28.07.2026 post lunch, i.e. after 2.00 P.M. and even observing a hunger strike in protest against the implementation of the Legal Aid Defence Counsel (LADC), Policy. 1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, who have been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- Name & age of Petitioner (s) FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station District (1) Sahab Singh, aged about 63 years (2) Kulwant Singh (aged about 67 68 19.04.2026 115, 118(1), 190, 191(3), 326(f), 351(2) of BNS (corresponding to sections 323, 324, 153A, 147, 464 506 of IPC) Siwan Kaithal LAVISHA 2026.07.29 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-26884-2026 2 years) (3) Malak Singh, aged about 21 years, (4) Simran Kaur, aged about 24 years (5) Harjinder Kaur, aged about 44 years, and (6) Gagandeep Kaur, aged about 28 years 2. On 12.05.2026, following order was passed:- “2. As per the allegations, a fight took place between the two sides and, at the first instance, at the behest of petitioner No.1 – Sahab Singh (from the petitioners’ side), FIR No.67 dated 18.04.2026 under Sections 115, 118(1), 126, 190, 191(3), 303 and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023 was registered at Police Station Siwan, District Kaithal. On the following day, at the instance of the complainant/injured, namely Takdir Singh, a cross-version FIR No.68 dated 19.04.2026 (impugned herein) came to be registered at the same police station. 3. As per the case of prosecution, on 18.04.2026, while complainant was harvesting his crop at about 11:30 AM, accused namely Sahab Singh, Jalim Singh, Kulwant Singh, Angrej Singh, Malik Singh, Prabhjot, Simran Kaur, Harjinder Kaur and Gagandeep Kaur, armed with lathis, dandas and swords, arrived at the fields. It is alleged that Sahab Singh caught hold of the complainant, whereupon accused Angrej Singh inflicted a gandasi blow on the left side of the complainant’s head. In the meantime, complainant’s mother, namely Paramjeet Kaur, and his brother-in-law, namely Kabal Singh, also reached the spot. It is further alleged that accused Harjinder Kaur and Gagandeep Kaur caught hold of Paramjeet Kaur, while Jalim Singh inflicted a gandasi blow on her head. Accused Prabhjot is alleged to have caused a sword injury to Kabal Singh. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although, names of petitioner No.2 – Kulwant Singh, petitioner No.3 – Malik Singh and LAVISHA 2026.07.29 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-26884-2026 3 petitioner No.4 – Simran Kaur find mention in the FIR as being present at the spot, but no specific overt act has been attributed to them, nor there is any allegation that they were armed with any weapon. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 – Sahab Singh is only alleged to have caught hold of injured Takdir Singh, whereafter accused Angrej Singh allegedly caused a gandasi injury on his head. Likewise, petitioner No.5 – Harjinder Kaur and petitioner No.6 – Gagandeep Kaur are alleged to have merely caught hold of injured Paramjeet Kaur, whereupon co-accused Jalim Singh inflicted a gandasi blow on her head, resulting in a lacerated injury. 5. Counsel for the petitioners further argues that precise involvement of the petitioners is yet to be ascertained. No specific injury attributed to any of the six petitioners has been alleged by the complainant party in the FIR. It is contended that dispute pertains to joint possession of the land and a civil suit filed by the complainant party seeking a decree of permanent injunction had already been dismissed, against which an appeal is stated to be pending before the District Courts at Kaithal. Therefore, it remains to be determined as to which party was the aggressor and caused injuries to the other side, particularly when a similar version was set up by the petitioners’ side, leading to registration of FIR No.67 dated 18.04.2026 at the first instance. 6. It is further submitted that petitioners are ready and willing to join the investigation and fully cooperate with the investigating agency, if they are granted protection from arrest by this Court. Thus, counsel prays for grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in the present case. 7. Notice of motion. 8. On advance notice, Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab, puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent – State, and Mr. Nitin Bhanwala, Advocate, puts in appearance on behalf of the complainant, and files his vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record. 9. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that, at this stage, role attributed to the present petitioners cannot be segregated from that of the other accused persons, as injured Takdir Singh, Paramjeet Kaur and Kabul Singh are alleged to have sustained injuries at the hands of all the accused persons acting in furtherance of their common object and with the aid LAVISHA 2026.07.29 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-26884-2026 4 of the co-accused, including the present petitioners, though some of them were not armed with weapons. It is contended that, once participation of the petitioners forms part of the unlawful assembly, each of them is liable to be treated at par with the principal assailants who allegedly caused injuries while armed with deadly weapons. It is further submitted that one of the injured, namely Kabul Singh, suffered amputation of the little finger of his right hand as a result of the occurrence. In view of the serious nature of the injuries and allegations levelled against the accused persons, counsel for the complainant submits that none of the petitioners deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. 10. Adjourned to 28.07.2026, to enable learned State counsel to file a status report in the matter, specifically detailing the role attributed to each accused and the precise allegations and overt acts, if any, attributed to them. 11. Meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to join the investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating Agency. In the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on ad-interim bail, subject to their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioners shall also abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.). 12. Besides, it is directed that petitioners would hand over their passports to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if they possess. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that they do not possess any passport. It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial, petitioners would seek prior permission of the Court.” 3. IO ASI Rajesh Kumar, has filed status report dated 28.07.2026 in the Court today and the same is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place on the file. 4. IO, who is present before this Court, submits that in compliance to the order dated 12.05.2026, petitioners have joined the LAVISHA 2026.07.29 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-26884-2026 5 investigation, and as of now, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required for the purpose of investigation. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Since, petitioners have already joined the investigation and custodial interrogation is no more required; ad-interim bail order dated 12.05.2026 passed by this Court is hereby made absolute. Accordingly, present petition is allowed. However, petitioners 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 petitioners to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if they possess, within a period of one week from today. Otherwise, they would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that they do 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 28.07.2026 Lavisha Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO LAVISHA 2026.07.29 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh