Harpreet Singh @ Laddi v. State Of Punjab
CRM-M-25947-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-25947-2025 Date of decision: 22.05.2025 Harpreet Singh @ Laddi
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
Present :
Mr. Viran Jain, Advocate with Mr. Amandeep Singh Mann, Advocate, & Mr. Raj Shekhar, Advocate, for the respondent. Mr. M. S. Toor, AAG, Punjab.
****
, J. (Oral) 1.
This is a petition for anticipatory bail filed under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suaksha Sanhita, 2023 in case FIR No.87 dated 25.04.2025 under Sections 109, 126 (2), 117(2), 115(2), 324 (4), 351(2), 191(3), 190 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 registered at Police Station Lehra, District Sangrur.
2.
The case of the prosecution is that petitioner along with coaccused caused injuries to the complainant who has suffered 13 injuries in all and out of which 9 are fractures. The petitioner gave iron rod blow on the complainant's head but on account of his self defence, the rod hit on his left arm and the same has been broken. Specific injury is attributed to the present petitioner.
3.
Learned counsel or the petitioner states that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the complainant since a land disputed among them in the village. The petitioner states that he was not found present at the spot. ANIL KUMAR 2025.05.30 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-25947-2025 Learned counsel further submits that there is a delay in filing the FIR and ortho opinion has been manipulated since it has been sought on 21.05.2025. 3.
Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner has been actively participated in the incident and has been attributed a specific role by the complainant. Learned State counsel explained that the ortho opinion is based on record and professional opinion and moreover, statement of the petitioner was recorded when he was declared fit by the doctor, as such, delay occurred in lodging the FIR.
4.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5.
In view of the above, no ground is made to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage and the present petition is dismissed as such. ( )
22.05.2025 anil Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes / No Whether reportable :
Yes / No ANIL KUMAR 2025.05.30 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document