Love Gill v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-32837-2026 DECIDED ON: 05.06.2026 LOVE GILL .....PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.

Present:

Mr. Amresh Singh Uggi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manjinder Singh Bhullar, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Ritesh K. Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant. SANJAY VASHISTH , J (ORAL) 1.

Present petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking grant of anticipatory bail, in case, FIR No.206 dated 20.12.2025, under sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023 (corresponding to sections 341(2), 323, 324, 307, 148, 149 of IPC), Police Station Bhargo Camp, District Jalandhar. 2.

Case of the prosecution, as discussed in the order dated 22.05.2026, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, is reproduced here under:- "Complainant Monika Kalyan got recorded her statement with the police that former is a Mahant and on 19.12.2025 at about 05:10 pm, was going to Raj Nagar Dera, on Activa but was stopped on the way by co-accused Mani Gill, Baba Ghungruan Wala, Gola, Vicky and other six unknown persons who started giving beatings to complainant who fell down. Mani Gill gave Khanda blow on forehead of complainant. Baba Ghungruan Wala gave dattar blow on left side of face of complainant also cutting the ear. Gola and Vicky gave kicks and dattar blows to complainant. Other unknown persons gave brickbat blows to complainant who raised alarm. Accused party had attacked complainant with intention to kill.

LAVISHA 2026.06.05 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

CRM-M-32837-2026 -2Complainant fell unconscious. Accused party left the spot. Complainant was taken to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar. Reason for attack was that Mani Gill had forcibly entered into the area of complainant to demand money from the inhabitants but complainant had stopped Mani Gill. On these allegations FIR was registered."

3.

Subsequent to the registration of FIR, complainant got recorded a supplementary statement on 07.01.2026, wherein she specifically named additional accused persons, namely Lucky @ Lucky Lahoriya, Love Gill (petitioner herein), Aadi Gill, Harry, Love Chhabra and Ritik. Consequently, they were also arrayed as accused in the present case vide DDR No. 26 dated 07.01.2026.

4.

Name of the petitioner also figures in the disclosure statement of co-accused Ritik Kumar Jha, as noticed by learned Court of Sessions in the impugned order dated 22.05.2026. Injured-complainant namely Monika Kalyan, was allegedly assaulted mercilessly by all the accused persons, and sustained total 13 injuries, out of which 6 were declared grievous.

5.

In such circumstances, where the complainant himself has specifically named the petitioner, contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that no specific injury has been attributed to him or that he was not present at the spot, does not carry much weight, at this stage. While considering the petition for anticipatory bail in a case of this nature, Court is also required to take into account the gravity of allegations and physical as well as mental trauma suffered by the victim. 6.

Accordingly, finding no ground to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, present petition stands dismissed. (SANJAY VASHISTH) 05.06.2026 JUDGE Lavisha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No LAVISHA 2026.06.05 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh