Baljit Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-24550-2026 DECIDED ON: 01.05.2026 BALJIT SINGH .....PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.

Present:

Mr. Gursimran S. Bawa, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

SANJAY VASHISTH , J (ORAL) 1.

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in cross-version registered vide GD No. 27 (Annexure P-2) dated 24.08.2024 under sections 118(2) & 3(5) of BNS (corresponding to sections 326 & 34 of IPC), in case, FIR No. 187 dated 13.08.2024 under Section 109 of BNS (corresponding to Section 307 of IPC) and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Gharinda, District Amritsar Rural (Annexure P-1). 2.

It is noticed that, at the first instance, petitioner had approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, by filing an application for anticipatory bail. Vide order dated 11.09.2024 (Annexure P-3), while issuing notice, interim anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner, with a direction to join the investigation within 15 days, and the matter was adjourned to 27.09.2024. LAVISHA 2026.05.01 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

CRM-M-24550-2026 -23.

Although the order dated 27.09.2024, or any subsequent proceedings before the said Court, have not been placed on record by the petitioner, however, a perusal of the order dated 10.10.2024 (Annexure P4) reveals that Investigating Officer appeared before learned ASJ, Amritsar, and submitted that petitioner had failed to join the investigation and had not cooperated in the recovery of the requisite weapon. Since none appeared on behalf of the petitioner on that date, anticipatory bail application was dismissed vide order dated 10.10.2024 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. 4.

From perusal of the record, this Court finds that concession sought by the petitioner had already been granted by the Court below; however, petitioner had misused the said concession of interim bail. In such circumstances, present petition for anticipatory bail is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.

However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail any other remedy, available to him, in accordance with law. (SANJAY VASHISTH) 01.05.2026 JUDGE Lavisha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No LAVISHA 2026.05.01 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh