CRM-M-45194-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 102+214 CRM-M-45194-2026 (O&M) Date of decision:10.09.2026 Gurnoor Singh through his mother and natural guardian ... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh Jawandha, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. ... Manisha Batra, J. (Oral). CRM-38042-2026: Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions and the documents annexed with the application are ordered to be taken on record as Annexures P-7 and P-8 respectively. Main case: 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is a child in conflict with law through his mother, seeking benefit of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.182, dated 31.05.2026, registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the BNS (offence under Sections 117(2) and 118(2) of the BNS were added lateron), at Police Station Amargarh, District Malerkotla. HARJEET KAUR 2026.09.11 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-45194-2026 (O&M) -2- 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by complainant – Jobanpreet Singh, alleging therein that his father Harjinder Singh and uncle Swaran Singh jointly owned a plot approximately measuring 04 biswas and 16 biswancies at village Ladewal which was in their possession. The plot of Jagjit Singh accused measuring about 01 biswa and 04 biswancies was abutting their plot. In the morning of 30.05.2026, the petitioner was installing fencing of barbed wire around their plot when the accused Jagjit Singh accompanied by the petitioner, who is his son and accused Harvinder Kaur, his wife reached there while armed with sticks. They uprooted and took away the cement pole installed by the complainant and tried to stop them but then accused Harvinder Kaur started arguing with the complainant. The petitioner and co-accused Jagjit Singh entered inside the plot of the complainant and started abusing him. The petitioner opened assault upon the complainant with an intent to kill him and struck two blows with a stick with which an iron blade was attached, on his head. Accused Jagjit Singh also struck blows on his head and right shoulder with the stick. Swaran Singh uncle of the complainant also sustained injuries at the hands of the petitioner and Jagjit Singh. Accused Harvinder Kaur made exhortation to not to spare them. The petitioner then struck a blow with the stick with which an iron blade was attached, on the head of Swaran Singh which was followed by the attack made upon the latter with a stick by accused Jagjit Singh. Swaran Singh had fallen down and became unconscious. On clamour being raised, the assailants fled from the spot. The injured were taken to the hospital. HARJEET KAUR 2026.09.11 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-45194-2026 (O&M) -3- 3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malerkotla vide order dated 07.07.2026. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Infact the mother of the petitioner owns 12 bighas, 09 biswas and 04 biswancies of land at village Ladewal and the complainant along with others had been interfering into her peaceful possession over the same. A complaint was filed in this regard. A civil suit was filed by her mother and interim injunction has been granted in her favour. Still the members of the complainant party tried to interfere into her peaceful possession over the land owned by her by trespassing into the same. On the night of 23.08.2025 being armed with deadly weapons, they had criminally intimidated the petitioner and his family members. They had fired shots and threatened to kill the petitioner and his family members. This incident was being recorded in the CCTV camera. The petitioner is a minor. This FIR was falsely lodged against his parents and himself due to personal enmity. The injuries have been falsely attributed to him. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. Being a minor, he is entitled to seek concession of bail as a matter of right. It is, therefore, argued that the petitioner deserves to be extended the benefit of pre-arrest bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel while not refuting that the petitioner is a minor, has submitted that there are serious allegations against HARJEET KAUR 2026.09.11 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-45194-2026 (O&M) -4- the petitioner. He had caused injuries on the person of the complainant, his father and his uncle. Injuries No.1 to 3 suffered by Swaran Singh uncle of the complainant have been opined to be grievous in nature and dangerous to life. These injuries have been attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner was the most active participant in the occurrence. For the purpose of conducting thorough investigation into the matter, his custodial interrogation is must. No exceptional or extraordinary circumstance for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out in his favour. It is, therefore, stressed that he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have voluntarily caused injuries on the person of the complainant, his father and uncle. The injuries sustained by victim Swaran Singh have been opined to be dangerous in nature. The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offences as against the petitioner. However, he was admittedly below the age of 18 years as on the date of occurrence. As such, he cannot be subjected to custodial interrogation. Taking into consideration this fact, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Even otherwise it is well settled proposition of law that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post conviction sentencing. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to the condition that the petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer within a period of 15 days from today and shall join the investigation. He shall also join HARJEET KAUR 2026.09.11 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-45194-2026 (O&M) -5- investigation as and when required subsequently. In the event of his arrest, the Investigating/Arresting Officer shall release the petitioner on interim bail on furnishing personal/surety bonds on his behalf by his legal guardian to his/her satisfaction. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNS. 8. It is, however, clarified that nothing stated above shall have any bearing on merits of the case. 9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. (MANISHA BATRA) 10.09.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2026.09.11 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document