Amritpal Singh Alias Amrit v. State Of Punjab

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 14.07.2025 Amritpal Singh alias Amrit . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Manjinder S. Bhullar, DAG, Punjab.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1.

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- Name & age of Petitioner (s) FIR No.

Date Section(s) Police Station District Amritpal Singh alias Amrit, aged about 30 years 21.12.2023 307, 324, 34 & 427 & 201 IPC (added later on) and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act, 1959 City Tarn Taran Tarn Taran 2.

In the present anticipatory bail petition, on 26.05.2025, following order was passed:- "1.

Learned State counsel has filed status report dated 12.05.2025 in the Court today and the same is taken on record. 2.

It is noticed by the Court that two individuals, namely Akashdeep Singh and Gurpreet Singh, sustained injuries in the present case. One of the accused was armed with a pistol, while another carried a 12-bore gun; both reportedly used their respective weapons during the incident. The third accused is the petitioner, whose name was disclosed by one of the injured during his statement recorded at the hospital. In that

- 2 - statement, the injured-victim specifically attributed a knife injury to the petitioner, alleging that he inflicted the wound on the backside of his head. 3.

In order to confirm the nature and extent of the injury allegedly caused by the knife attributed to the petitioner, proceedings in the present petition are deferred for 14.07.2025." 3.

Status report is already there on record. In regard to the injuries suffered by the injured - Akashdeep Singh, it is mentioned in the column of Final Diagnosis that, "SHARP CUT (2 TO 3 CM) (OCCIPITAL AREA)". 4.

On being asked by the Court, learned State counsel informs that regarding the aforesaid injury, there is no medical opinion ever sought by the police. Therefore, he is not in a position to say whether the same was found to be grievous or simple.

5.

Extending the submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that at the time of conducting the Test Identification Parade (TIP), the injured - Akashdeep Singh, attributed the injury with knife on the head to another accused, i.e., Vikram and not to the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that whether the involvement of the petitioner is actually there or not, vis-à-vis the role attributed to him, is not to be seen at this stage, as his involvement is yet to be established by the prosecution by leading some substantial evidence. Moreover, the petitioner is ready to join investigation if protected from arrest.

6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the circumstances, and also gone through the instant petition as well as the status report, and thereupon, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7.

Accordingly, petitioner is directed to join the investigation

- 3 - within a period of two weeks from today, or as and when required to do so by the Investigating Agency. In the event of his arrest, petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall also be abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. 8.

Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over his passports to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport.

It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of the Court. 9.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

It is, however, made clear that in case petitioner fails to join investigation within the stipulated period, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application for cancellation of bail by recalling today's order.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE July 14, 2025 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No