Bhim Rao Alias Bhim Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 21.07.2025 Bhima Rao @ Bhim Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Mr. Shivpartap Singh Khattra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Prabhjot Singh Mann, Advocate for the complainant.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1.

Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.216 dated 04.11.2024 registered under Sections 103, 351(2), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short 'BNS, 2023'), at Police Station Sadar Nabha, District Patiala. 2.

In brief the case of prosecution is that FIR (supra) has been registered on the basis of statement made by complainant Ranjeet Singh son of Nasib Singh with the allegations that they are three brothers and one sister. Gurcharan Singh was youngest to all and he was unable to speak. On 03.11.2024 at about 09.30 a.m. due to a fight he had died on 04.11.2024 at PGI, Chandigarh. He further stated that Gurcharan Singh

was running a puncutre shop in his village and was cleaning his shop then Bhim Rao who was having adjoining shop of Sweet Maker with the shop of Gurcharan Singh started altercation with Gurcharan Singh regarding waste material, upon which Bhim Roa, Ankush Rao, Ankit Rao alias Vishu son of Bhim Ram picked up Balas from the shop of Bhim Rao and with intention to kill Gurcharan Singh started giving bala blows upon the head and other parts of the body of Gurcharan Singh. Ankit Rao gave bala blow on the right side of the head of Gurcharan Singh and due to which Gurcharan Singh fell on the ground. Thereafter all the accused left the spot with their respective balas by extending threats.

Thereafter, Gurcharan Singh was taken to Civil Hospital, Nabha from where he was referred to Rajindra Hospital Patiala and from there he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh and during treatment Gurcharan Singh died on 04.11.2024. All this occurrence was videographed by Sikander Singh son of Harbhajan Singh and he was instigating the accused for beating Gurcharan Singh. On the basis of statement of complainant, FIR was registered and accused Ankush Roa and Ankit Roa were arrested in this case.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that as per the case set up by the prosecution, it not clear which of the accused has inflicted fatal blow, which has resulted into death of deceased Gurcharan Singh. The case set up by the prosecution is unworthy of any reliance as one of the co-accused namely Sikander Singh, with a similar allegation, has been declared innocent. During the

course of investigation, one video has surfaced according to which the co-accused Ankush has been seen inflicting the fatal blow on the person of deceased. The petitioner has been falsely implicated only for the reason that he is father of co-accused Ankit and there are material contradiction between the version set out by the complainant in the FIR (supra) and the evidence collected during the investigation. 4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, opposes the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner and he along with co-accused has inflicted injuries on the head of the deceased Gurcharan Singh. Further the petitioner has actively participated in the alleged crime and his presence is duly established in the video as such, keeping in view the serious allegations, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 5.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR with serious allegations of having actively participated in the fatal assault on the deceased Gurcharan Singh, which is further supported by video evidence indicating his presence at the spot. The petitioner was allegedly armed with a bala, and there are specific allegations that he, along with other co-accused, inflicted fatal blows on Gurcharan Singh, resulting in his death. In view of the gravity of the offence and the stage of

investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail at this stage. 6.

Dismissed.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 21.07.2025 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No