← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/30231/2026allowed

Taranpreet Sharma v. State Of Punjab And Another

2026-05-26Mr. Justice Subhas Mehla3 pages

CRM-M-30231-2026 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (108) CRM-M-30231-2026 (O&M) Decided on: 26.05.2026 TARANPREET SHARMA ......Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA

Present:

Ms. Muskan Garg, Advocate with Mr. Ishan Thakur, Advocate and Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for for the petitioner.

Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab.

**** SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (Oral) 1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short - 'the BNSS') seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.71 dated 04.04.2026 registered under Sections 110, 118(1), 115(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') at Police Station Dakha, District Ludhiana.

2.

Allegations against the present petitioner are that the petitioner was travelling in a car make 'Scorpio' being driven by co-accused, namely, Karamjeet Kaur, who is wife of the complainant and she hit the motorcycle being driven by the complainant with the said car due to which he fell off the motorcycle and sustained injuries. Hence, the present FIR was registered.

CRM-M-30231-2026 (O&M) -2- 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no overt act is attributed to the petitioner, as it is only alleged that the petitioner was travelling with the co-accused who is wife of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that co-accused Karamjit Kaur has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail vide order dated 22.04.2026 passed by this Court in CRM-M-22252-2026 and the petitioner is at better footing than that of the co-accused as he was merely a co-passenger when the car was being driven by co-accused, namely, Karamjit Kaur. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is having clean & clear antecedents and is ready and willing to join the investigation and to cooperate with the investigating agency. Hence, prayer for grant of concession of anticipatory bail is made. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

In pursuance of advance notice, Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab put in appearance and accepted notice on behalf of the respondent-State and submitted that the petitioner along with co-accused was travelling in the car and they hit the motor-cycle of the complainant with the car due to which the complainant has received total 09 injuries. However, it is fairly admitted that the case of the petitioner is on better footing than that of the co-accused, namely, Karamjeet Kaur, who has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail and the petitioner is not involved in any other case.

6.

Heard.

CRM-M-30231-2026 (O&M) -37.

Taking into consideration the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the co-accused, who was driving the car in the alleged occurrence, has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail vide order dated 22.04.2026 passed by this Court in CRM-M-22252-2026 and the petitioner is on better footing than that of the co-accused, hence, this Court finds merit in the present petition. 8.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to join investigation as and when required by the investigating officer and to cooperate in the investigation. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of investigating/arresting officer, subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS and subsequently, the petitioner is directed to abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

9.

Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE 26.05.2026 Sonia Puri Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable:

YES/NO