High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/35977/2025dismissed

Ranjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2025-08-26Mrs. Justice Sukhvinder Kaur4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Sr. No.208 Case No. : CRM-M-35977-2025 Decided On : August 26, 2025 Ranjit Singh ....

Petitioner vs.

State of Punjab ....

Respondent CORAM :

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.

* * * Present :

Mr. Ashok Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. P. S. Pandher, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

* * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J.

Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.68 dated 12.05.2025, under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 298 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, registered at Police Station Div. No.1, District Pathankot. The case, as enunciated by the prosecution, in brief, is that one Ranjit Singh s/o Sham Singh (hereinafter referred to as - the complainant) got registered the FIR in question on 12.05.2025 regarding the occurrence, which took place on 24.03.2025. It is stated in the FIR that on that day i.e. 24.03.2025, at about 01:00 PM, the complainant was coming out of Court Complex, Pathankot after attending hearing in a case, when Ranjit Singh

s/o Prem Singh (hereinafter referred to as - the petitioner) along with his companion met him in the parking lot and started abusing and threatening him of dire consequences if the case registered by him against the petitioner was not withdrawn by him. Then the petitioner started beating the complainant and gave a blow with stone on his nose. Due to excessive bleeding from nose, his clothes were drenched with blood. Both of them also slapped on complainant's face and gave fist blows at his back. On raising alarm, near-by persons came to his rescue and the complainant reached the hospital for treatment. Thereafter, with the intervention of respected persons, talks for compromise took place but not succeeded and the complainant got the FIR in question registered on 12.05.2025 i.e. after 49 days.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the delay in lodging the FIR remained unexplained. It is a case of version and crossversion and both parties suffered injuries. Thus, it would be debatable as to which party was the aggressor. It was the petitioner, who first reported the matter to the police on the very next day i.e. on 25.03.2025 by moving an application, but no FIR was registered on the same. It was strange enough for the petitioner that the FIR was registered after 49 days, at the instance of the complainant, which clearly speaks of manipulation of record by the police. Learned counsel further submitted that in fact, on 24.03.2025, the petitioner was attacked by the complainant with Siri Sahib (small kirpan) (Gatra) and in order to save himself, the first blow of sword hit his forehead, above the side of his left eye and second blow hit on the below side of his left eye. He also argued that it is admitted position that application of the

petitioner was registered as GD No.21, but without taking any action thereon, the case was closed by the police under political pressure. Neither the petitioner was called to the concerned Police Station nor anyone visited the Hospital where he was admitted for treatment. The only injury suffered by the complainant, which was declared grievous, was on his nose which could have been suffered even due to fall on hard surface during scuffle. It has been urged that the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation and be granted concession of anticipatory bail. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on various judgments of this Court i.e. Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab - 2006(16) RCR (Criminal) 710, Tarlok Singh vs. State of Punjab - 2014(16) RCR (Criminal) 50, Sukhdev Singh vs. State of Punjab - 2017(1) Law Herald 831, Charanjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab - 1996(1) RCR (Criminal) 775 and Avtar Singh vs. State of Punjab - 2019(1) Law Herald 37.

Per Contra, learned State counsel has opposed the present bail petition while contending that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner for having caused injuries to the complainant. One of the injury, declared grievous by the concerned doctor(s), is attributed to the petitioner. Moreover, there is one more case registered against the petitioner under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Dina Nagar, Pathankot. So, keeping in view his criminal antecedents and active role in the occurrence, the petitioner does not deserve concession of bail from the Court. Heard.

As per allegations qua the petitioner, he along with his

companion, attacked the complainant and hit him with stone on his nose resulting into fracture of bone of nose. The said injury on nose was declared grievous in nature by Board of Doctors. As per Status Report, one more criminal case under Section 420 IPC has been registered against the petitioner.

Keeping in view the serious allegations against the petitioner and also the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not a fit case to grant concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The citations, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, are of no help being distinguishable from the facts of case in hand. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. Anything expressed herein above shall not be construed as an expression or opinion on the merits of the case.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of along with the present petition.

August 26, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No.