104 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.44918 of 2026 Date of Decision:-26.08.2026 Mangaljit Singh …..Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL ***** Present:- Mr. Abhaysher Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG, Punjab. VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present petition preferred under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.137 dated 01.06.2026 under Sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 324, 190 and 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS’) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur. 2. Status report by way of affidavit of Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Brar, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur, along with Annexure R-2, filed in Court today, is taken on record. The Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place on the case file. YAG DUTT 2026.08.27 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M No.44918 of 2026 -2- 2. On 13.08.2026, the following order was passed by a coordinate Bench:- “This petition for pre-arrest bail is the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.137 dated 01.06.2026, Police Station Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 324, 190, 191(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act. 2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of 'Gursewak Singh', hereinafter being referred to as 'complainant' only. The pith and substance of the statement of above-named complainant was that on 29.05.2026 at about 12:00 PM when he was travelling in a car being driven by 'Avtar Singh', the car was waylaid by 'Mandeep Singh @ Mani', and thereafter, an assault was launched upon him by 'Mandeep Singh @ Mani', who was armed with a firearm, and accompanied with 'Karnail Singh', 'Akash Singh' and 'Sukha Singh'. As per complainant, in the above-mentioned incident, 'Mandeep Singh @ Mani' had fired two gunshots with an intention to kill him, whereas 'Karnail Singh', armed with iron rod, 'Akash', with kirpan, and 'Sukha Singh', armed with iron rod, inflicted injuries with their respective weapons. The complainant further stated that when he screamed for help 'Sukhdev Singh @ Kala' exhorted to teach him a lesson and on his call 'Kaka Singh', 'Prakash Kaur' and 'Sukhpreet Singh' came there and attacked him with the wooden handle of spade, while proclaiming that they would teach a lesson to the complainant for stopping them from selling drugs/intoxicant. According to complainant, in the above-mentioned incident, in YAG DUTT 2026.08.27 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M No.44918 of 2026 -3- addition to above-mentioned injury, he suffered two gunshots injuries also, and that he was got admitted in the hospital by his family members. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of above- mentioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appears on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. 6. Heard. 7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case as per contents of the statement of complainant himself, the incident had taken place at about 12 noon on 29.05.2026, but the FIR was lodged on 01.06.2026 at 11:28 PM, i.e. after a gap of almost sixty hours. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the statement, which served as a foundation for the FIR, the names of all the assailants were mentioned, there was no reference of the present petitioner. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, later on, i.e. 35 days after the incident, in the supplementary statement of the complainant, the name of the petitioner cropped up for the first time, and it has been alleged that at the time of commission of offence, the petitioner was carrying a steel rod fixed with a grari. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the supplementary statement, it has been alleged that on both legs of the victim injuries were inflicted by the petitioner with the above-mentioned weapon. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that petitioner has no criminal antecedents, and that his name in the above-mentioned case has been YAG DUTT 2026.08.27 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M No.44918 of 2026 -4- introduced later on. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the above-mentioned stand of the petitioner is not believable in view of the fact that the petitioner and the complainant are residents of the same place. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that during he course of investigation, the statement of sole eye-witness namely 'Avtar Singh' was also recorded by the Investigating Officer, and that even in the statement of 'Avtar Singh' there was no reference of the presence of petitioner on the spot at the time of occurrence. 9. The learned State counsel has controverted the above- mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel, there is no deliberate delay in the present case in registration of FIR, as initially the victim was not fit for making statement. It has also been contended by learned State counsel that weapon of offence is to be recovered from the possession of petitioner, and that his name has been specifically mentioned by the complainant himself. 10. The record has been perused carefully. 11. 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 name of the petitioner did not figure in the FIR; ii. that even in the statement of eye-witness namely 'Avtar Singh', which was recorded after the supplementary statement of the complainant, the name of the petitioner did not figure; iii. that the petitioner has clean antecedents; iv. that the recovery of alleged weapon of offence can be facilitated by issuing a direction to the petitioner to join the investigation as and when called by the YAG DUTT 2026.08.27 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M No.44918 of 2026 -5- Investigating Officer; v. that the investigation and trial are not likely to be concluded in near future; vi. that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not likely to produce a fruitful result; vii. that 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 interim 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 interim anticipatory bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the investigation. 12. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled to interim anticipatory bail. 13. Thus, it is hereby ordered that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner 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 notice is served upon him, in writing, by the Investigating Officer. He shall abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023. 14. List on 26.08.2026. 15. Let status report and detailed reply, if any, be filed by the State by next date. 16. To be shown in urgent list.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the aforesaid order dated 13.08.2026, the petitioner has duly joined YAG DUTT 2026.08.27 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M No.44918 of 2026 -6- investigation. 4. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Gurdev Singh, who is present in the Court, submits that in compliance of the order dated 13.08.2026, the petitioner has duly joined investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required. 5. In view of the fact that the petitioner has duly joined investigation and keeping in view the statement given by learned counsel representing the State of Punjab, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 13.08.2026 is made absolute, subject to compliance of the provisions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) August 26, 2026 JUDGE Yag Dutt Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No YAG DUTT 2026.08.27 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.