High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/24463/2025allowed

Malkeet Chand v. State Of Punjab

2025-08-12Mrs. Justice Sukhvinder Kaur4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Sr. No.206 Case No. : CRM-M-24463-2025 Decided On : August 12, 2025 Malkeet Chand ....

Petitioner vs.

State of Punjab ....

Respondent CORAM :

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.

* * * Present :

Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Navdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

* * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J.

Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.206 dated 16.11.2024, under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(3), 191(3), 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (offence under Section 118(2) BNS added later on), registered at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur. The aforesaid FIR was registered on the statement of Gagandeep Singh, alleging therein that on 01.11.2024, he was celebrating Diwali festival with his family on the roof top of their house. At about 09:00 PM, Harpreet Singh @ Billa and Manjinder Singh @ Mindi started throwing crackers towards their roof. When the complainant objected, both of them and their father namely Jaswinder Singh started abusing them. Thereafter, aforesaid Harpreet Singh @ Billa, Manjinder Singh @ Mindi,

Malkit Singh @ Meeka armed with khanda, wooden bat and kirpan respectively came to them. Harpreet Singh @ Billa gave khanda blow, hitting on the left side of his head, Manjinder Singh @ Mindi gave two blows with wooden bat on his shoulders. Then, one Deepak Jhammat armed with khanda and one Deepak Dadra also came there. Deepak Jhammat and Deepak Dadra both gave khanda blows to his brother namely Akashdeep which hit on his forehead and right hand respectively. Malkit Singh @ Meeka also gave kirpan blow which hit on the middle finger of foot of his brother Akashdeep. Thereafter, Harjinder Singh @ Pichu, Balwinder Singh, Ranjit Singh, Jaswinder Singh - sons of Ramji Dass along with two more unknown persons entered their house, abused them and threatened to kill them. The complainant further alleged that when his wife Sunita came for his rescue, the accused persons also caused injuries to her. Meanwhile, many people gathered there and all the assailants fled away from the spot along with their respective weapons.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR. However, the alleged injury attributed to the petitioner is on the index finger of left foot of brother of the complainant. The complainant suffered three injuries out of which injury no.1 was declared grievous (attributed to co-accused Harpreet Singh) and other two injuries were declared simple in nature. He further submitted that earlier, petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide order dated 11.12.2024 and he was directed to join investigation within 10 days. However, due to sudden demise of father-in-law of Investigating Officer, he

was not joined during that period. The petitioner sought extension of time for joining investigation but during pendency of his application for extension of time, Section 118(2) BNS was added on 20.01.2025. Learned counsel further urged that the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation and he is not required for any interrogation. He has, therefore, prayed that the petitioner be granted concession of anticipatory bail. Status Report on behalf of the respondent - State, filed today in the Court, is taken on record.

Learned State counsel has opposed the present bail petition and has contended that the petitioner and his co-accused inflicted injuries to the complainant and his family members with a calculative mind. The weapon used by the petitioner in commission of offence i.e. kirpaan, is yet to be recovered and as such, his custodial interrogation is required for fair and proper investigation. So, he does not deserve concession of anticipatory bail.

Heard.

As per the allegations in the present FIR, the main injury, which has been declared grievous by the doctor concerned, is not attributed to the petitioner. The injuries caused by the petitioner have been declared to be simple in nature. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for any purpose. So, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars.

Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. In the event of arrest, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on furnishing bail/surety bonds, to the satisfaction of

the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer, subject to the conditions, as provided under Section 482(2) of BNSS. It will be open for the Investigating Officer to call the petitioner to join investigation, if so required, by issuing a written notice in this regard. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions mentioned in Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of along with the present petition.

August 12, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No.