Sawarn Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.102+205 Date of Decision: 28.04.2026 SAWARN SINGH

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. B.S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Sr. Advocate, assisted with Ms. Manju Fulara, Advocate for respondent No.2.

***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) CRM-4952-2026 The present application has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking permission to place on record the amended memo of parties in terms of the interim order dated 28.01.2026 in the main petition. In view of the averments made, the application is allowed and the amended memo of parties is taken on record. Main case 1.

This is the first petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed for grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 324 dated 29.12.2025, registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 126(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Lehra, District Sangrur, Punjab.

2.

Briefly stated, the present FIR was registered on the statement of complainant Resham Singh, who alleged that he is an agriculturist and that a watercourse was being constructed in the fields as per the directions of the Punjab Government. On 29.12.2025, when Patwari Pritpal Singh and J.E. Lakhwinder Singh had come to the village in connection with the said work and the complainant also reached his fields, accused persons namely Satnam Singh @ Lucky, Savaran Singh, Dilkaram Singh and Kuldeep Singh were allegedly found present there. It is alleged that upon seeing the complainant, the accused persons started abusing him and when he tried to leave the spot, they restrained him. Co-accused Dilkaram Singh allegedly gave a gandasi blow on the head of the complainant and another blow on his head after he fell down.

Co-accused Kuldeep Singh allegedly inflicted a blow with a weapon like barcha on his left eye. It is further alleged that Satnam Singh gave a danda blow on the right shoulder of the complainant from behind, whereas the present petitioner Savaran Singh allegedly gave iron pipe blows on the back of the complainant twice and one blow on his left hand when he tried to save himself. It is further alleged that Kuldeep Singh gave two blows with barcha on the right leg of the complainant and Dilkaram Singh gave a gandasi blow on his left leg, whereafter the accused fled from the spot on seeing people gathering there. The motive alleged is that the accused wanted to purchase the complainant's land and the complainant had restrained them from entering his land.

As per the MLR, the injured suffered 11 injuries, all of which were opined to be caused by blunt weapons. Injury No. 2 pertaining to the left eye was kept pending for opinion of the Ophthalmologist, whereas injuries No.

under Orthopedic opinion and injury No. 1 on the head was kept under Surgeon's opinion. The X-ray examination report on record shows that no bony injury was detected on the skull, right leg, left hand, knee joints, left shoulder and spine.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that it is a case of version and cross-version. It is argued that one Satnam Singh @ Lucky from the petitioner's side had also sustained injuries in the same occurrence and had received as many as five injuries, however, no action has been taken by the police on the said version. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a 76-year-old senior citizen suffering from multiple health ailments. It is argued that as per the allegations in the FIR, only simple injuries have been attributed to the present petitioner, which at best attract the offence under Section 323 IPC/Section 115(2) of the BNS. It is further submitted that co-accused Kuldeep Singh, to whom the grievous injury pertaining to the eye has been attributed, has already been granted the concession of bail. Learned counsel also submits that in compliance with the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner has already joined the investigation.

4.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the present petition and submits that pursuant to order dated 28.01.2026, the petitioner did join the investigation, however, he did not fully cooperate with the investigating agency as he has failed to produce/recover the iron rod allegedly used in the commission of the offence. It is thus argued that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As per the allegations in the FIR, the specific role attributed to the present petitioner is that he inflicted iron pipe blows on the back of the complainant and one blow on his left hand, which prima facie resulted in simple injuries. The grievous injury relating to the eye has been specifically attributed to co-accused Kuldeep Singh, who has already been granted the concession of bail. It is not disputed that the petitioner has joined the investigation pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court.

Merely because the alleged weapon has not been recovered from the petitioner would not, by itself, lead to an inference that he has not cooperated with the investigation, particularly when the petitioner disputes having used the said weapon and he cannot be compelled to produce an article which he claims is not in his possession. Considering the age of the petitioner, the nature of allegations, the role attributed to him and the fact that he has joined the investigation, this Court finds no justification for custodial interrogation of the petitioner.

6.

Accordingly, the interim order dated 28.01.2026 is made absolute and the petitioner shall remain on anticipatory bail subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. 7.

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) 28.04.2026 JUDGE Anu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No