Parshant Rai v. State Of Punjab
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH 207-2 Decided on : 14.07.2025 Parshant Rai . . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Gursimran Singh Madaan, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Manjinder S. Bhullar, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the complainant.
**** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1.
In the present petition by noticing the contentions of the petitioner's counsel, on 12.05.2025, following order was passed by this Court:- "
Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- Name & age of Petitioner (s) FIR No.
Date Section(s) Police Station District Parshant Rai, aged about 25 years 02.02.2025 333, 324(4), 331(4), 305, 191(3), 190, 351(1) of BNS Behram SBS Nagar 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that though the anticipatory bail petition filed by co-accused Nokar Seepa @ Ranvinder Singh had been dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 21.02.2025 (Annexure P-3), yet, Hon'ble Apex Court is now ceased with the prayer for anticipatory bail and, by an order dated 07.04.2025 (Annexure P-4), arrest of the said co-accused has been stayed. By referring to the allegations in the FIR, counsel submits that the incident took place on 01.02.2025 at about 8:15 PM but the FIR has been got registered on 02.02.2025 at about 3:00 PM.
3.
As per FIR, Joga Singh, Prashant Rai (servant - petitioner herein) and Nokar Seepa @ Ranvinder Singh had been identified by the complainant Jasvir Singh at the time of incident. There is nothing
- 2 - mentioned that the assailants had entered the house and caused any serious injury.
It is further submitted that both the sides are co-villagers and due to party politics the FIR has been got lodged. Rather there is a complaint moved at the instance of Joga Singh to the S.S.P., S.B.S Nagar, but no action has been taken by the police.
4.
Counsel for the petitioner also submits that another coaccused namely Joga Singh, has already been granted interim bail by this Court, vide order dated 22.04.2025, passed in CRM-M-20800-2025. It has been further submitted that petitioner is ready to join investigation, if, protected from arrest.
5.
Notice of motion.
6.
On advance notice, Mr. Luvinder Sofat, Senior DAG, Punjab, puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent - State, and seeks some time to respond to the submissions addressed by learned counsel opposite, after seeking instructions. And, in case of necessity, to file status report.
7.
Adjourned to 14.07.2025.
To be heard along with CRM-M-20800-2025.
8.
In the meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating Agency. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on ad-interim bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall also be abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.). 9.
Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over his passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport.
10.
It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of the Court." 2.
Continuing the submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance to the order dated 12.05.2025, passed by this Court, the petitioner has already joined the investigation and is ready to cooperate with investigation agency, as and when same is required again. 3.
On the other hand, learned State counsel, also confirms the said statement of joining the investigation and thus, submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required, at this stage, for the purpose of investigation.
However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant(s) opposes the prayer by submitting that the excessive damage has been caused to the vehicles belonging to the complainant, and the
- 3 - petitioner (accused) be directed to compensate the complainant(s). Heard.
5.
Since the petitioner has already joined the investigation and his custodial interrogation is not even asked for, present petition is allowed and the ad-interim order dated 12.05.2025 is hereby made absolute. However, petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the terms and conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.
6.
Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over his passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport.
It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of the Court. So far as, prayer of the complainant(s) is concerned, same cannot be considered at this stage.
7.
Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE July 14, 2025 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether Reportable:
Yes/No