Sukhchain Bohat @ Commando v. State Of Punjab
CRM-M-16165-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.111 CRM-M-16165-2026 Decided on : 08.04.2026 Sukhchain Bohat @ Commando ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM :
*** Present :
Mr. Rajeev K.Kapila, Advocate for the petitioner.
.
Sh. Harnamanpreet Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
*** , J (ORAL)
!"
#$
"%"&
'( $ %)*
""%+"%")
"% %*(,
$
" #
-
.-
-
) )
/
# / 0 -1 -
2
'( &
-
-
2 further submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and he
CRM-M-16165-2026 2 has no concern with the said offence. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner was the President of the said Sabha and some of the complainants used to create troubles and interfered in the daily management affairs of the said Sabha. On 03.03.2025, in the meeting of the said Sabha, they abused and manhandled the petitioner and the petitioner moved a representation before the police about the said incident but no action was taken against the said persons. He further contends that the police instead of taking action against the said persons, registered the present FIR against the petitioner being a counterblast to complaints of the petitioner.
He contends that the petitioner was the president of the said Sabha in the year 2020 and afterwards also remained as such but during the period from 2020 till 2025, there was no complaint against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case and he is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Agency and shall fully cooperate with the investigation. On these grounds, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed.
'(
/
/
-
4
*%&"%"* 5 On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. *
2 -
- / 1
CRM-M-16165-2026 3 /
-
5 (
! Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record
--
-
-
) )
/
# / 0 -1 - 6 -
- 7
6,
/
7
-
-
8
/
-
/
-
-
,
- + (
/
7 /
9:6 ,
/ -
;
;
CRM-M-16165-2026 4 /
-
7 (/
2 <
,
/
=
! "#$
%
!
%
&
'
(
'
%
% 6 2 >
"P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement", (2019) 9 SCC 24, /
/
-
.
-
6
=8 ?55
-
.
- 41
#
=9 ,,&!* +:
?+-
7
/
CRM-M-16165-2026 5
-
.
- / -
/
- /
- @
- B
5!
&!,, .
.
;-
-
A
-
-
(
A
1C- 4 /
-
DDDDDDDDD !&
-
-
- / -
/
1 /
-
/
-
2
-
A
/
/ @
, -.
/
-
/
6
-
CRM-M-16165-2026 6 " (-
.
E --
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No F
=G E$