Naveen Bhatti v. State Of Punjab
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Date of Decision: 12.05.2026 Naveen Bhatti ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh.
Present:
Mr. Sunil Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Rohit Bansal, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent.
Surya Partap Singh, J.
1.
This petition for bail is the second petition filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of 'the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023'. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 22 dated 27.02.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 109, 126(2), 132, 221, 303(2), 190 and 191(3) [Section(s) 115(2), 118(1), 117(3), 110 and 118(2) added lateron] of 'the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023' and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station City Batala, District Batala, Punjab.
2.
The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of 'Kamla Bhatti alias Baggison', hereinafter being referred to as "complainant" only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that on 26.02.2025 at about 08:30 P.M. he was standing in the street where his friends, namely 'Rajinder Singh alias Raja' and 'Satinder Pal Singh alias Lucky' came on 'Activa'.
According to complainant, thereafter, 'Rajan Bhatti', 'Martin', 'Danish', 'Abhi', 'Pardeep Kumar', each of them armed with "Dattars" (Sickles), along with 'Shubh' armed with 'Sword' (a sharp-edged weapon) and four/five unknown persons came. As per complainant, 'Pardeep Kumar' exhorted to teach a lesson to them and thereafter, they launched an assault upon 'Rajinder Singh alias Raja' and when 'Satinder Pal Singh alias Lucky' tried to intervene, he, too, came under attack and suffered multiple injuries. 3.
In addition to above, the complainant also stated that when the above-mentioned fight was going on, few police officials also arrived on the spot, and when they tried to intervene, 'Shubh' fired two gunshots, out of which one hit the police official.
4.
It is the case of prosecution that pursuant to above-mentioned incident, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. 5.
Notice of motion.
Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. Rohit Bansal, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice 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 the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that his name does not figure in the FIR despite the fact that he was previously known to the complainant. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the role attributed to the petitioner is minor in nature, i.e. causing of one injury which has been declared to be grievous on the person
of 'Rajinder Singh alias Raja' and two minor injuries on the person of 'Satinder Pal Singh alias Lucky'. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has already suffered a prolonged incarceration for a period of seven months & 24 days, and that his prolonged incarceration is not likely to serve any purpose. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has clean antecedents. 8.
The learned State counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State counsel, in the present case, there are very specific allegations against the petitioner with regard to the fact that he was the member of an unlawful assembly and the members of above-mentioned unlawful assembly inflicted 18 injuries on the person of 'Rajinder Singh alias Raja' and 15 on the person of 'Satinder Pal Singh alias Lucky' and thereafter, when the police party reached on the spot, even the police official was injured with gunshots. According to learned State counsel, in view of gravity of offence, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of bail.
9.
The record has been perused carefully.
10.
A perusal of the record shows that there are very specific allegations qua the fact that the petitioner was a member of an unlawful assembly and the members of the above-mentioned unlawful assembly inflicted 33 injuries on the persons of two injured, namely 'Rajinder Singh alias Raja' and 'Satinder Pal Singh alias Lucky'. In addition to above, they also assaulted the police party and inflicted one gunshot injury on the person of a police official.
11.
Taking into consideration the fact that the nature of offence
committed by the members of above-mentioned unlawful assembly is very grievous in nature, and also that the allegations against the petitioner are for causing grievous injury on the person of 'Rajinder Singh alias Raja' with a sharp-edged weapon, it is hereby held that the petitioner, who has been in custody for a period of seven months & 24 days, is not entitled for the benefit of bail at this stage. Thus, it is hereby observed that the present petition is devoid of merits and deserves dismissal. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed, accordingly.
12.
The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, shall stand disposed of.
13.
It is, however, clarified that any observations made in the above-mentioned order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(Surya Partap Singh) Judge May 12, 2026 "DK"
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No