Sanju Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19588-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 06.05.2026 Sanju Singh ..... Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by : Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Dr. Rau P.S. Girwar, Advocate for the complainant. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

This petition for pre-arrest bail is the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of 'the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023'. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.70 dated 10.03.2026, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 118, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Civil Lines, District Bathinda.

2.

The learned counsel for the complainant has filed short reply. The same be taken on record.

3.

Heard. Vide order dated 09.04.2026 the petitioner was admitted to interim anticipatory bail, subject to the condition of furnishing bail/surety

bonds to the satisfaction of arresting officer. It was also directed that the petitioner shall join the investigation. In view of above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has requested that the order dated 09.04.2026 be made absolute.

4.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance with order dated 09.04.2026, the petitioner has joined the investigation.

5.

The learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned counsel for the complainant, the present case is a case, wherein the Investigating Officer is conducting the investigation in unfair manner, and that against the biased approach of the Investigating Officer, a complaint against the Investigating Officer has been filed, by the complainant, before the senior authorities.

6.

The learned counsel for the complainant, while referring to certain photographs of the contents of the short reply, has contended that in fact the injury inflicted on the person of victim was with a sword, but the Investigating Officer is showing it to be a sharp strip. The learned counsel for the complainant has also contended that the intention behind the causing of abovementioned injury was to kill the complainant, but by diluting the facts, the Investigating Officer has invoked the sections of lighter consequences and a different picture is being projected. 7.

The learned State Counsel though opposed the petition for prearrest bail, yet, he has conceded that till today, any of the injury suffered by

the complainant has not been declared, either grievous in nature or dangerous to life. The learned State Counsel has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation, and that for further investigation of this case his custodial interrogation is not required.

8.

The record has been perused carefully.

9.

A perusal of record shows in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision:- i. that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate;

ii. that the maximum punishment prescribed for the commission of abovementioned offence is imprisonment up to three years;

iii. that the petitioner has already joined the investigation; iv. that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

v.

that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not likely to produce a fruitful result;

vi. that the investigation and trial are not likely to be concluded in near future;

vii. that there is nothing on record to show that if the order dated 09.04.2026 is made absolute, the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and viii. that there is nothing on record to show that if order dated 09.04.2026 is made absolute, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the investigation/trial.

10.

Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors and the fact that the petitioner has already joined the investigation, it is hereby ordered that the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby allowed and the order dated 09.04.2026, whereby the petitioner was accorded the benefit of interim anticipatory bail, is hereby made absolute.

11.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 06.05.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No