Inder @ Inderjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Inder @ Inderjit Singh ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab ... Respondent 1.

The date when the judgment is reserved 18.05.2026 2.

The date when the judgment is pronounced 20.05.2026 3.

The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 20.05.2026 4.

Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced Full 5.

The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof Not applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:

Mr. Harpal Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Durgesh Garg, AAG, Punjab.

...

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.45, dated 25.02.2026, registered under Sections 333, 118(2), 115(2) and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Kot Ise Khan, District Moga.

-22.

The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by complainant - Sandeep Singh @ Shani, alleging therein that in the morning of 25.02.2026, he was present in the cabin of his shop, when the present petitioner accompanied by Sundar and two persons unknown to him, reached there in his car. All of them entered inside his cabin and opened an assault upon him. Accused Sundar made an exhortation and one unknown accused opened an assault upon the complainant by striking blows with a stick. Accused Sundar picked up a kappa lying in his shop and struck blows with the same. The petitioner, who was armed with a weapon kept on showing the same. On clamour being raised, some persons had reached there and then the assailants fled away. 3.

After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of pre-arrest bail, which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga vide order dated 17.04.2026.

4.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. No specific overt act has been attributed to him. Infact he played no role in the occurrence. There is no evidence in the form of CCTV footage or any forensic evidence to establish his presence on the spot. No one sustained any firearm injury in this case. Nor he is even alleged to have used any firearm. He ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. It is, thus, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5.

Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the status

-3report, has vehemently argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail.

6.

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7.

The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have criminally trespassed into the shop of the complainant, while the co-accused are alleged to have assaulted the complainant and to have caused injuries on his person. The allegations against the petitioner are that he brandished a pistol to overawe the complainant. Given the nature of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that pre-trial incarceration of the petitioner is not required. As such, the petitioner has made out a case for his release on anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be extended benefit of anticipatory bail, subject to his joining investigation and surrendering within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and upon his doing so, he shall be released on bail by the Investigating Officer on furnishing personal as well surety bonds to his satisfaction and further subject to following conditions:- (i) the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the investigating officer/arresting officer as and when required.

(ii) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person

-4acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.

(iii) he shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

8.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 9.

It is further clarified that the observations made above are only for the purpose of consideration of application for pre-arrest bail and the same shall not in any manner influence the trial. The trial Court shall consider the case on its merits and without being influenced by this order. 10.

Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application if any is rendered infructuous.

(MANISHA BATRA) 20.05.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No