Dharampreet Singh Alias Gaggi v. State Of Punjab
CRM-M-25573-2026 -1-
!"# $%&%!'( ) *+
( ,- ./ ..
!
! " #$ %%% . +0 -1( &
$ !
'() * + , " " )-). / 0*,
12 +
"
+ $
!
34,5) 65-5)-)7
!
667/)2 6)8/)2 ))6 6.) .76/62 .76/.2 6..
.66 696/.2 69-* +,++ )-)./ 0*, 12 $ : ! ; $ ) &
34
!+ !$
&
$$
# #"
< !
#+ =
68-5)-)7 #
+
,*>6->:&>)869# !#
, $
?$ <" * $
$ $+@ ##
CRM-M-25573-2026 -2- $+"
# !$
+ # ? !$
" + # !"
# !$
& !$
$ $
# " !" ? !
$$ $$ + !$$
!!
+ * $$ @ "
# !$
! &+!
$+ $$
!$
!$
:
# " &+$$ ! ! 57--A>"
:
!$
#$ & !! !$ # ! # $ & $ $#+ .
34
!
#+
$ !
+ $:#
$$+ !
-5-))-)8 + ! $
$ ; :# $
$ ! # 6--))-)8 ' 4 +$ ! $
$$+ $ !
!:!$
+ <
!#
$
!
34,(8 686-)-)' ! "
# $+
CRM-M-25573-2026 -3- #
:#
! B $+ ! !
+ $
!,# +
!:
! $
B ,! + ! 4
$$# 7 , ! 8 ; ! $ !
+ 4 + "
#
+ $$ $ $$
!
$
+
# # + < $
$
C $ 5 This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 8.
The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly along with the co-accused and in pursuance of common object thereof, is further alleged to have caused obstruction in performance of lawful duty of the complainant, who is a conductor in Punjab Roadways. The petitioner along with co-accused is also alleged to have assaulted the complainant. thereby causing simple injuries to him, criminally intimidated him and also snatched money from him by overawing him. The allegations against the petitioner are specific and serious in nature. Though the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge had extended benefit of pre-arrest bail to
CRM-M-25573-2026 -4him but the same had not been availed by the petitioner. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that for the purpose of conducting thorough and proper investigation in the matter, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. In case custodial interrogation of the petitioner is denied to the Investigating Agency, that shall leave many glaring loopholes and gaps, thereby adversely affecting the investigation. Even otherwise, the petitioner has failed to make out any exceptional or extraordinary circumstance making out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail to him. In view of the above discussed facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
9.
It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 6-
!
$+
$ !
+
! 2. 3
) *+