CRM-M-28501--2026 (O&M) 1 IN THEE HIGH COURT OF PUNJABB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHH CRM-M-28501-2026 (O&M) HARBINDER SSINGH AND ANOTHER ... Petitionerss Versus STATE OF PUNNJAB ...Respondentt 1 The daate when the judgment is reserveed 27.05.2026 2 The daate when the judgment is pronouunced 29.05.2026 3 The daate when the judgment is uploadded on the 29.05.2026 websitte 4 Whethher only operative part of the juddgment is Full pronouunced or whether the full judgmeent is pronouunced 5 The deelay, if any, of the pronouncemeent of full Not applicable judgmment and reasons thereof. CORAM: HOON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANNISHA BATRA Present: Mr. APS Deol, Senior Advocate witth Ms. Sagarika, Advocate for the petittioners Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate wwith Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate, Mr. Jeevanjot S. Kang, Advocate foor the complainant **** MANISHA BATTRA, J. 1. Thee instant petition has been filed jointly by the petitioners underr Section 482 of BBharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sannhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”)) for grant of anticcipatory bail in case arising out oof FIR No.124 dated 29.04.20266 registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 191(3), 1 90 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,, 2023 (for short ““BNS”) at Police Station Sadar, FFaridkot. AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.29 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28501--2026 (O&M) 2

2. Thee aforementioned FIR was regisstered on the basis of statementt recorded by the ccomplainant Darshan Singh, alleeging therein that on 25.04.20266 he was working in his field alongwith his son SSurinder Singh. In the adjoiningg field, his brothher Ranjit Singh was workingg. Suddenly, the petitionerss accompanied byy co-accused reached there beiing armed with weapons on aa tractor and interccepted them. The petitioner No. 1 was holding dang in his hand,, whereas petitionner No.2 was carrying a pistool with him. They made ann exhortation and tthen pushed Ranjit Singh, brothher of the complainant aside andd asked co-accusedd Gurmeet Singh to drive a tracttor and to teach the complainantt a lesson. Gurmeeet Singh started the tractor and with intent to kill, drove it withh a crowbar. Afteer hitting by the crowbar, commplainant’s brother got stuck inn between the tracctor and crowbar. Thereafter, aaccused Gurmeet Singh tried too run him over witth the tractor. His knee was baddly injured and he had fallen onn the ground. Thhe petitioners again made an exxhortation that the complainantt should not be lleft alive and on their asking accused Gurtej Singh hit thee complainant witth a gandasa, whereas accusedd Gurmeet Singh again tried too crush him underr the tractor. On clamour beingg raised, the family members off the complainant and other persons reached theere and then the assailants fledd away. His brotheer was also injured in the incidennt.

3. Afteer registration of FIR, investi gation proceedings have beenn initiated and aree underway. Apprehending theeir arrest, the petitioners movedd applications for grant of anticipatory bail whichh were dismissed by a commonn AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.29 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28501--2026 (O&M) 3 order dated 11..05.2026 passed by the Courtt of Learned Sessions Judge,, Faridkot.

4. It iss argued by learned Senior counnsel for the petitioners that theyy have been falselly implicated in this case. It iis a case of version and cross--version. The ddispute was between the co-acccused Gurmeet Singh and thee complainant partty and the petitioners had nothin g to do with the same. Even thee name of the petiitioner No.1 had not been correectly mentioned in the FIR. Noo specific overt act has been attributed to them. TThe accused Gurmeet Singh hadd also sustained injjuries in the same incident and oon his statement cross DDR Nos.. 39 and 40 have bbeen registered on 29.04.2026. It was the complainant who hadd blocked the passsage of the land of Gurmeet Sinngh by putting big stones on hiss way. On a commplaint made by Gurmeet Singgh, the petitioners being formerr Sarpanches and other respectable members of thhe village had gone to the fieldss of Gurmeet Singgh for amicably resolving the mmatter. It was the complainantt who had initiatedd the assault. The injuries sustaained by the complainant are onn non-vital part off the body and do not fall withinn the ambit of Section 118(2) off BNS, as they arre simple in nature. Rather thhe injuries sustained by the co--accused Gurmeeet Singh are serious in naturee. The allegations against thee petitioners are o f making exhortations only. Thhe petitioner No.1 is a 69 yearss old person. Thee injury attributed to the petitionner No.1 on the person of Ranjitt Singh, injured haas been opined to be simple in nnature. The petitioners are readyy to join investigaation. Therefore, custodial inteerrogation is not required. Noo

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.29 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28501--2026 (O&M) 4 recovery is to bee effected from them. It is, theerefore, argued that the petitionn deserves to be al lowed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel wwith learned Senior counsel forr the complainantt has vehemently argued thaat the allegations against thee petitioners are quuite serious in nature. By formming membership of an unlawfull assembly with tthe co-accused they had volunttarily caused simple as well ass grievous injuriess on the person of the victim. TThe injury No.1 Darshan Singhh had sustained fraactures on right distal end femurr. His left ankle was dislocatedd and has been rreduced. He has undergone ddebridement and is still underr treatment. The custodial interrogation of the ppetitioners is must. There is noo exceptional or exxtra-ordinary circumstance to exxtend benefit of anticipatory baill to them. It is, theerefore, argued that the petition ddoes not deserve to be allowed. 6. Thiss Court has heard the rival submmissions made by learned counsell for the parties at considerable length.

7. Thee petitioners by forming membeership of an unlawful assemblyy with the co-accuused are alleged to have volunttarily caused simple as well ass grievous injuriess to the complainant Darshan Sinngh and his brother Ranjit Singh.. The photographss of the victim Darshan Singh are shown to this Court whichh reveal that his leeft ankle had almost amputatedd and he had suffered fractures.. The allegations against the petitioners are serrious in nature. They are thee precipitators of tthe crime as firstly they made exxhortations to open assault uponn the victims and then themselves participated inn the same. The victims havee AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.29 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28501--2026 (O&M) 5

suffered injuries which appear to be quite serioou in nature. It is well settledd proposition of laaw that grant of bail is a discreetionary relief to be granted orr denied based on specific facts and circumstancees of each case and there cannott be any exhaustivve parameter set out for conside ring the application for grant off bail. The factorrs such as nature of accusationss, severity of punishment if thee accusations entaail, conviction and nature off evidence in support of thee accusations are to be seen. That apart reasonaable apprehension of tamperingg with evidence oor threatening the material wittnesses is also to be weighed.. Frivolity of prossecution should also be considerred and it is only the element off genuineness thatt has to be considered in the maatter of grant of bail. It is alsoo well settled propposition of law that powers for ggrant of pre-arrest bail are to bee exercised in exceeptional and sparing circumstancces not in a routine manner. Noo exceptional circuumstance appears to have been mmade out in this case. The casee is at its nascent sstage. In case custodial interroggation of the petitioner is deniedd to the Investigat ing Agency, that shall leave maany glaring loopholes and gaps,, thereby adverseely effecting the investigatioon. For conducting effectivee investigation soo as to avoid any loopholess in the same, the custodiall interrogation of tthe petitioner is must.

8. Takking into consideration the abo ve discussed facts but withoutt meaning to makke any comment on the merit oof the case, this Court is of thee considered opiniion that the petition does deservve to be allowed. Accordinglyy the same is dismissed. AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.29 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28501--2026 (O&M) 6 9. Sincce the main petition has been diismissed, pending application, iff any, is rendered iinfructuous. (MAANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 29.05.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yees/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.29 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M-28501--2026 (O&M) 1 IN THEE HIGH COURT OF PUNJABB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHH CRM-M-28501-2026 (O&M) HARBINDER SSINGH AND ANOTHER ... Petitionerss Versus STATE OF PUNNJAB ...Respondentt 1 The daate when the judgment is reserveed 27.05.2026 2 The daate when the judgment is pronouunced 29.05.2026 3 The daate when the judgment is uploadded on the 29.05.2026 websitte 4 Whethher only operative part of the juddgment is Full pronouunced or whether the full judgmeent is pronouunced 5 The deelay, if any, of the pronouncemeent of full Not applicable judgmment and reasons thereof. CORAM: HOON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANNISHA BATRA Present: Mr. APS Deol, Senior Advocate witth Ms. Sagarika, Advocate for the petittioners Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate wwith Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate, Mr. Jeevanjot S. Kang, Advocate foor the complainant **** MANISHA BATTRA, J. 1. Thee instant petition has been filed jointly by the petitioners underr Section 482 of BBharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sannhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”)) for grant of anticcipatory bail in case arising out oof FIR No.124 dated 29.04.20266 registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 191(3), 1 90 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,, 2023 (for short ““BNS”) at Police Station Sadar, FFaridkot. AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.29 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28501--2026 (O&M) 2

2. Thee aforementioned FIR was regisstered on the basis of statementt recorded by the ccomplainant Darshan Singh, alleeging therein that on 25.04.20266 he was working in his field alongwith his son SSurinder Singh. In the adjoiningg field, his brothher Ranjit Singh was workingg. Suddenly, the petitionerss accompanied byy co-accused reached there beiing armed with weapons on aa tractor and interccepted them. The petitioner No. 1 was holding dang in his hand,, whereas petitionner No.2 was carrying a pistool with him. They made ann exhortation and tthen pushed Ranjit Singh, brothher of the complainant aside andd asked co-accusedd Gurmeet Singh to drive a tracttor and to teach the complainantt a lesson. Gurmeeet Singh started the tractor and with intent to kill, drove it withh a crowbar. Afteer hitting by the crowbar, commplainant’s brother got stuck inn between the tracctor and crowbar. Thereafter, aaccused Gurmeet Singh tried too run him over witth the tractor. His knee was baddly injured and he had fallen onn the ground. Thhe petitioners again made an exxhortation that the complainantt should not be lleft alive and on their asking accused Gurtej Singh hit thee complainant witth a gandasa, whereas accusedd Gurmeet Singh again tried too crush him underr the tractor. On clamour beingg raised, the family members off the complainant and other persons reached theere and then the assailants fledd away. His brotheer was also injured in the incidennt.

3. Afteer registration of FIR, investi gation proceedings have beenn initiated and aree underway. Apprehending theeir arrest, the petitioners movedd applications for grant of anticipatory bail whichh were dismissed by a commonn AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.29 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28501--2026 (O&M) 3 order dated 11..05.2026 passed by the Courtt of Learned Sessions Judge,, Faridkot.

4. It iss argued by learned Senior counnsel for the petitioners that theyy have been falselly implicated in this case. It iis a case of version and cross--version. The ddispute was between the co-acccused Gurmeet Singh and thee complainant partty and the petitioners had nothin g to do with the same. Even thee name of the petiitioner No.1 had not been correectly mentioned in the FIR. Noo specific overt act has been attributed to them. TThe accused Gurmeet Singh hadd also sustained injjuries in the same incident and oon his statement cross DDR Nos.. 39 and 40 have bbeen registered on 29.04.2026. It was the complainant who hadd blocked the passsage of the land of Gurmeet Sinngh by putting big stones on hiss way. On a commplaint made by Gurmeet Singgh, the petitioners being formerr Sarpanches and other respectable members of thhe village had gone to the fieldss of Gurmeet Singgh for amicably resolving the mmatter. It was the complainantt who had initiatedd the assault. The injuries sustaained by the complainant are onn non-vital part off the body and do not fall withinn the ambit of Section 118(2) off BNS, as they arre simple in nature. Rather thhe injuries sustained by the co--accused Gurmeeet Singh are serious in naturee. The allegations against thee petitioners are o f making exhortations only. Thhe petitioner No.1 is a 69 yearss old person. Thee injury attributed to the petitionner No.1 on the person of Ranjitt Singh, injured haas been opined to be simple in nnature. The petitioners are readyy to join investigaation. Therefore, custodial inteerrogation is not required. Noo

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.29 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28501--2026 (O&M) 4 recovery is to bee effected from them. It is, theerefore, argued that the petitionn deserves to be al lowed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel wwith learned Senior counsel forr the complainantt has vehemently argued thaat the allegations against thee petitioners are quuite serious in nature. By formming membership of an unlawfull assembly with tthe co-accused they had volunttarily caused simple as well ass grievous injuriess on the person of the victim. TThe injury No.1 Darshan Singhh had sustained fraactures on right distal end femurr. His left ankle was dislocatedd and has been rreduced. He has undergone ddebridement and is still underr treatment. The custodial interrogation of the ppetitioners is must. There is noo exceptional or exxtra-ordinary circumstance to exxtend benefit of anticipatory baill to them. It is, theerefore, argued that the petition ddoes not deserve to be allowed. 6. Thiss Court has heard the rival submmissions made by learned counsell for the parties at considerable length.

7. Thee petitioners by forming membeership of an unlawful assemblyy with the co-accuused are alleged to have volunttarily caused simple as well ass grievous injuriess to the complainant Darshan Sinngh and his brother Ranjit Singh.. The photographss of the victim Darshan Singh are shown to this Court whichh reveal that his leeft ankle had almost amputatedd and he had suffered fractures.. The allegations against the petitioners are serrious in nature. They are thee precipitators of tthe crime as firstly they made exxhortations to open assault uponn the victims and then themselves participated inn the same. The victims havee AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.29 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28501--2026 (O&M) 5

suffered injuries which appear to be quite serioou in nature. It is well settledd proposition of laaw that grant of bail is a discreetionary relief to be granted orr denied based on specific facts and circumstancees of each case and there cannott be any exhaustivve parameter set out for conside ring the application for grant off bail. The factorrs such as nature of accusationss, severity of punishment if thee accusations entaail, conviction and nature off evidence in support of thee accusations are to be seen. That apart reasonaable apprehension of tamperingg with evidence oor threatening the material wittnesses is also to be weighed.. Frivolity of prossecution should also be considerred and it is only the element off genuineness thatt has to be considered in the maatter of grant of bail. It is alsoo well settled propposition of law that powers for ggrant of pre-arrest bail are to bee exercised in exceeptional and sparing circumstancces not in a routine manner. Noo exceptional circuumstance appears to have been mmade out in this case. The casee is at its nascent sstage. In case custodial interroggation of the petitioner is deniedd to the Investigat ing Agency, that shall leave maany glaring loopholes and gaps,, thereby adverseely effecting the investigatioon. For conducting effectivee investigation soo as to avoid any loopholess in the same, the custodiall interrogation of tthe petitioner is must.

8. Takking into consideration the abo ve discussed facts but withoutt meaning to makke any comment on the merit oof the case, this Court is of thee considered opiniion that the petition does deservve to be allowed. Accordinglyy the same is dismissed. AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.29 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28501--2026 (O&M) 6 9. Sincce the main petition has been diismissed, pending application, iff any, is rendered iinfructuous. (MAANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 29.05.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yees/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.29 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.