Gurpreet Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-34254-2026 Date of Decision:22.06.2026 GURPREET SINGH

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL

Present:

Mr. Harpreet Pal Singh Bunger, Advocate for the petitioner.

Dr. D. S. Lamba, Addl. A. G. Punjab.

**** PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Petitioner has sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in DDR No.31 dated 26.05.2026 in FIR No.75 dated 26.05.2026 under Section 223, 61(2) of BNS, 2023 (erstwhile 188 and 120B IPC) Section 25, 30 of Arms Act registered with Police Station City-I, District Mansa. 2.

As per prosecution case, Municipal Council Election were taking place on 26.05.2026 when security incharge at polling Booth Nos.40, 41, namely ASI Jarnail Singh apprehended Bhagat Singh Bhatti while entering polling premises being in possession of .32 bore pistol along with 8 cartridges. The said pistol as well as cartridges were duly recovered from said Bhagat Karan Bhatti who had failed to produce any valid licence or authority. He was apprehended and FIR was registered. Subsequently on disclosure of Bhagat Karan Bhatti, petitioner-Gurpreet Singh was nominated RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.06.22 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-34254-2026 -2as accused as the weapon recovered from Bhagat Karan Bhatti belonged to him. Section 30 of Arms Act, 1959 was added and DDR No.31 was recorded on the same date i.e. 26.05.2026.

3.

During investigation, Arpit Singla and his brother-in-law were also added as accused. Admittedly, Arpit Singla has since been granted interim bail by this Court vide order dated 19.06.2026. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing has been recovered from him and he was not even present at the time of occurrence. It is submitted that co-accused-Arpit Singla has already been granted bail and has shown readiness and willingness of petitioner to join investigation. 5.

On consideration, I do not find any parity with the case of present petitioner with Arpit Singla. The allegations against Arpit Singla were different whereas allegations against present petitioner are as regards to fact that it is present petitioner who was licence holder of fire arm recovered from co-accused Bhagat Karan Bhatti. The matter in the present case is serious in nature, licenced fire arm was owned and possessed by petitioner was being carried by third person at the time of Municipal Council elections. The matter needs thorough investigation.

6.

Keeping in view the nature as well as seriousness of the allegations against present petitioner, custodial interrogation of petitioner cannot be held to be unjustified. No case for anticipatory bail is made out. Hence, dismissed.

7.

Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly. (PARMOD GOYAL) 22.06.2026 JUDGE Ravinder Whether Speaking/Reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.06.22 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document