Boota Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.105 Date of Decision: 01.04.2026 BOOTA SINGH

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. Achin Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab.

***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) 1.

This is the first petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.) seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest in FIR No. 117 dated 19.08.2025, registered under Sections 310(2), 311, 115(2), 126(2) of BNS, 2023 (later on added Sections 117(2) and 238 of BNS, 2023) at Police Station Jaito, District Faridkot. (Corresponding to Sections 395, 397, 323, 341 IPC, 1860 and later on added Sections 325 and 201 IPC). 2.

As per the prosecution case, the allegations are that the accused, along with other co-accused, encircled the complainant and his brother, assaulted them and caused injuries, and also snatched cash amount and certain documents/articles from them. The accused persons are stated to be known to the complainant, being co-villagers, and specific allegations have been levelled regarding their participation in the occurrence.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no specific role has been attributed to the present petitioner and there is nothing on record to connect him with the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that two of the co-accused have already been granted regular bail and, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of bail. 4.

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It is contended that all the accused persons, including the present petitioner, inflicted a kirch blow which hit the left eye of the victim and also snatched the wallet, identity proof, cash amount of Rs. 8000/- and mobile phone of the complainant. Keeping in view the specific role attributed to the petitioner and the gravity of the offence, it is argued that he is not entitled to be released on bail.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.

The allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. The role attributed to the petitioner shows his active participation in the occurrence wherein the victim was assaulted and sustained injuries on a vital part of the body. The offence alleged involves serious charges under the relevant penal provisions, including those attracting severe punishment. The nature of allegations and the manner in which the offence is stated to have been committed prima facie indicate the involvement of the petitioner. Furthermore, the material witnesses in the present case are yet to be examined and there is every likelihood that if released on bail, the petitioner may influence the witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence.

7.

Considering the gravity of the offence, the specific role attributed to the petitioner, and the stage of trial, this Court does not find it a fit case to grant the concession of bail.

8.

Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed. 9.

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) 01.04.2026 JUDGE Anu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No