Jagtar Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH DECIDED ON: 24.02.2026 JAGTAR SINGH .....PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.

Present:

Mr. M.S. Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Ms. Sarika Gupta, 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.0080, dated 10.05.2025, under Sections 118(2), 118(1), 3(5) of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur.

2.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the real nephew of the complainant, namely Hardev Singh, and parents of the present petitioner have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail.

3.

Dispute pertains to the use of two tubewells installed in the agricultural fields, which are yet to be partitioned between the parties. 4.

In an effort to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement, the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation

Centre of this Court. However, as per the report received therefrom, the dispute could not be resolved between the parties. 5.

Taking into consideration the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court passed the following order on 02.09.2025:- "1.

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0080 dated 10.05.2025 registered under Sections 118(2), 118(1), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur and for the grant of ad-interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the present petition.

2.

Since the real dispute is regarding water channel between the two brothers i.e. Sampuran Singh (Father of the petitioner) on one side and the complainant-Hardev Singh, aged 65 years on the other side. Both are related as real brothers.

3.

The allegation against the petitioner is of causing one grievous injury on the finger of left hand, thus, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not caused any injury on vital part of the body of the injured Hardev Singh (Related as his Chacha). Thus, learned counsel submits that petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation, provided he is granted protection from arrest and accordingly, prays for the grant of anticipatory bail.

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant-Sarika Gupta vehemently argues that the accused persons are in habit to make attacks upon the complainant time and again and in that regard, there is a previous history also.

5.

Noticing all the aspects including the one, which is arising out of relationship between the parties and with an object to resolve the dispute for the coming generations, the petitioner-Jagtar Singh along with his father (Sampuran Singh) and complainant-Hardev Singh along with his son(s) are directed to be present before this Court on the next date of hearing.

6.

Adjourned to 22.09.2025 7.

To be taken up at 2:00 p.m.

8.

Meanwhile, arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing and the issue

regarding joining of investigation would be considered subsequently."

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready to join the investigation and to fully cooperate with the Investigating Agency, if he is protected from arrest by this Court. It is further submitted that allegation against the petitioner is of having caused one injury on the finger of the left hand, which is simple in nature. However, the injury on the left wrist has been declared grievous.

7.

Learned counsel additionally submits that the occurrence took place on the spur of the moment due to sudden provocation, and culpability of the petitioner can be determined only after the parties lead their complete evidence before the trial Court. 8.

Considering the nature of the dispute and the fact that parties are closely related to each other, this Court does not find any substantial reason to subject the petitioner for custodial interrogation. Accordingly, present petition is allowed.

9.

Petitioner is directed to join the investigation within two weeks from today, or as and when required by the investigating agency, and in the eventuality of the arrest, petitioner would be released on anticipatory bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall also be abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.).

10.

Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over his passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he

possesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport.

It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of the Court. (SANJAY VASHISTH) 24.02.2026 JUDGE Lavisha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No