Harjinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 26.05.2026 HARJINDER SINGH ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed under section 482 BNSS (Earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C) for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 66 dated 26.07.2025 under Sections 109,351(2), 191(3), 190 BNS (corresponding IPC Sections 307, 506, 148, 149, 201 IPC) registered at Police Station- Malaudh Police District Khanna, District Ludhiana.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that on 24.07.2025 at about 3:00 PM, the complainant along with his cousin brother Aslam and Nanak Singh was going on motorcycles and, when they reached opposite the house of Harjinder Singh, Harjinder Singh caught hold of the handle of the motorcycle, causing them to fall down. It is further alleged that thereafter the petitioner brought a sword from his house and attacked them. The petitioner is alleged to have inflicted sword blows on both wrists/forearm region of the complainant, which injuries have been opined to be grievous in nature.

-23.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that, as per the allegations, the petitioner was not initially armed and is stated to have gone inside his house to bring a sword. This clearly shows that the petitioner probably exercised his right of self-defence. He further submits that the petitioner has not inflicted any injury, as by the time he came out, the complainant and his aides had already been thrashed and stabbed by the residents of the village. The police, under the influence of the husband of the Sarpanch of the village, recorded a false case against the petitioner and others. He further submits that the co-accused have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court. He further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation. 4.

Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and both the injuries inflicted by the petitioner have been opined to be grievous/sharp in nature. He has filed the status report by way of an affidavit of Harmanpreet Singh (PPS), Deputy Superintendent of Police, Payal, Sub-Division Payal, Police District Khanna, District Ludhiana, in Court today, which is taken on record.

5.

I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record.

6.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the injury attributed to the petitioner is grievous in

-3nature, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for recovery of the weapon of offence and to ascertain the place of concealment of the said weapon. Therefore, this Court does not find any ground to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

26.05.2026 (H.S.GREWAL) renu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No