Thana Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 17.09.2025 Thana Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present :

Mr. PKS Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gautam Thapar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

***** AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J.(ORAL) 1.

This order shall dispose of present petition for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner, an accused in case FIR No.0070 dated 06.05.2025, registered against him and others, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 333, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS and Section 27 of Arms Act, at Police Station Nehianwala, District Bathinda. 2.

Relevant facts as emerging from documents on record be noticed hereinbelow:- On 01.05.2025, medical ruqa was received from Civil Hospital, Goniana Mandi, reporting therein about the admission of Lachhmi Kaur, daughter of Surjit Singh, resident of Killi Nihal Singh wala, who had suffered injuries in physical assault. Police team arrived at Hospital and after seeking permission from the Doctor, recorded statement of the injured (Lachhmi Kaur), who pointed out that she is a nurse by profession and is presently working in Ashirward Private Hospital. At about 02:30 PM on 01.05.2025, she (complainant) and her mother Paramjit Kaur were present at their house, when petitioner accompanied by his friend Jaswinder Singh alias Gaggi barged inside their house. Jaswinder Singh threatened them

(complainant and her mother) to pay the amount that they had borrowed or else he would file a false criminal complaint case under Section 138 NI Act. When she (C) requested them to lower down their pitch and to behave properly with the old lady, she was assaulted by both petitioner and Jaswinder Singh. She also mentioned that at that point in time, petitioner was armed with a pistol and had brandished the same. She (C) next stated that though they had borrowed money from co-accused Jaswinder Singh, but had returned the same along with interest, however, with a view to extract illegal monetary benefit, he had been issuing threats and demanding more money. With this backdrop, she requested the police officials to catch hold of the miscreants, as also to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against them.

On the basis of said complaint and Medico Legal Report, a formal case vide FIR No.0070 dated 06.05.2025, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 333, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS and Section 27 of Arms Act was registered and investigations are set into motion. During the course of investigation, the police officials noted that complainant Lachhmi Kaur had visited the police station on the previous day i.e. on 01.05.2025 and had moved a complaint, but in the said complaint, allegation of physical assault and petitioner-Thana Singh being armed with a pistol were missing. Nonetheless, proceedings were set into motion. 3.

Apprehending his arrest, petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, which was dismissed vide order dated 20.05.2025. Aggrieved of the same, the present petition has been filed.

4.

Learned counsel submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The fact that police officials noted a variation

in the two stands of the complainant, itself reflects upon the falsity of the case set up by her. Learned counsel submits that petitioner has been falsely roped in by the complainant, who was having financial dispute with coaccused Jaswinder Singh. In any case, post the grant of interim anticipatory bail by this Court, petitioner has joined the investigation, recovery of the weapon (Revolver .32 Bore) has also been effected. Learned counsel submits that the presence of the petitioner is not needed for custodial interrogation and thus, the concession of interim anticipatory bail granted earlier to the petitioner be confirmed.

5.

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the request for grant of pre-arrest bail by submitting that the manner in which petitioner and co-accused Jaswinder Singh barged inside the house of complainant, where she and her mother were residing, disentitles him to the grant of discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail.

6.

Status report by way of affidavit of Mr. Ravinder Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division, Bhucho, District Bathinda, has been filed by the learned State counsel. In para 9 thereof, the factum of petitioner having got recovered the weapon said to have been brandished by him at complainant has been mentioned. In para 10, it has further been specified that the injuries suffered by complainant have been declared as 'Simple in Nature'.

7.

Heard.

8.

Keeping in view the above submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as also the fact that the petitioner has joined the investigation, interim bail granted vide order dated 27.05.2025 is hereby confirmed, subject to conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) BNSS.

Further the petitioner is directed to join investigation as and when required in future by way of written notice for such purpose to be served by Investigating Officer of this case upon the petitioner; he will not tamper with the evidence nor will influence the witnesses and will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

9.

The petition stands allowed.

(AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE 17.09.2025 Hemant Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No