Gurmit Singh v. State Of Punjab
CRM-M-22659-2025 209A
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22659-2025 Decided on: 19.05.2025 Gurmit Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. Randeep Singh Waraich, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab.
**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 03.08.2024 Sangat, District 127(1), 115(2), 118(1), 3(5) Bathinda of BNS 2023 (Section 117(2) & 118(2) of BNS added later on) 1.
The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail.
2.
In paragraph 11 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.
3.
The facts and allegations are taken from the reply dated 18.05.2025, which reads as follows:
"4. That the brief facts of the case are as follows: The complainant Gurtej Singh said that on 31.7.2024 he was going on his motorcycle. At about 6.00 a.m., when he reached near the Old age Home, there Gurmit Singh armed with axe, Kuldeep Singh armed with Kirpan, Charanjit Singh armed with Gandasa and Lakhvir Singh armed with iron rod came on a Honda Amaze Car and waylaid him. Gurmit Singh raised a Lalkara and gave axe blow, which hit on the right side of his head, Charanjit Singh ANJU RANI 2025.05.22 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh
CRM-M-22659-2025 gave a Gandasa blow, which hit on the backside of his shoulder. He fell down. Lakhvir Singh gave iron rod blow, which hit on his right arm. Kuldeep Singh gave Kipran blow, which hit on his left leg below the knee. Gurmit Singh gave another axe blow, which hit on his right leg, kakhvir Singh gave iron rod blow, which hit on his left leg, above the ankle. The accused gave also beatings while he was lying on the ground. He raised alarm and people were attracted to the place of occurrence. Then all the accused fled away from the spot."
4.
The petitioner's counsel submits that petitioner has not caused alleged injuries and even there is a delay of 3 days in filing the FIR. He further prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and his family. 5.
The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. REASONING:
6.
Analysis of the above arguments would lead to the following outcome. 7.
In para 4 of the reply, it has been explicitly mentioned that petitioner-Gurmit Singh was armed with axe and he gave axe blow which hit on right side of head of the complainant and another blow of Gurmit Singh hit on right leg of the complainant. Axe is a dangerous weapon and the petitioner hit the axe on body of the complainant, which caused grievous injuries.
8.
A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached primafacie points towards the petitioner's involvement and does not make out a case for anticipatory bail. The impact of crime would also not justify anticipatory bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so. 9.
Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 10.
Petition dismissed. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 19.05.2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable:
No.
ANJU RANI 2025.05.22 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh