Gurjant Singh v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.214 Case No. : CRM-M-36595-2025 Decided On : August 12, 2025 Gurjant Singh ....
Petitioner vs.
State of Punjab ....
Respondent CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.
* * * Present :
Mr. G. S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Navdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.
Ms. Mamta, 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.0043 dated 05.06.2025, under Sections 331(6), 324(4), 3(5), 125, 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and under Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Amir Khas, District Fazilka.
The aforesaid FIR was registered on the statement of Maninder Singh, alleging therein that on 03.06.2025, at about 09:30 PM, the complainant was repeatedly called and threatened telephonically by one Sukhchain Singh. Feeling frightened, he along with his family moved to the fields nearby. After 10 minutes, said Sukhchain Singh with two more
persons forcibly entered the house of the complainant and started firing indiscriminately, thereby causing damage to his house. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR and his name has been added in the FIR only on the basis of suspicion. The complainant was not present at the spot when the alleged occurrence took place. He only heard the noise. The petitioner was never seen entering the house of the complainant. No injury has been attributed to the petitioner. Presence of the petitioner has not been proved even by any alleged witness to the crime. At this stage, it has also been apprised to this Court that the matter has been compromised between the parties and a vernacular copy of said Compromise has been filed in Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, which is taken on record. Learned counsel further urged that the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation and he is not required for any interrogation. He has, therefore, prayed that the petitioner be granted concession of anticipatory bail.
Status Report has already been filed on behalf of the respondent - State, which has been placed on record. Learned State counsel has opposed the present bail petition and has contended that the petitioner along with his co-accused has actively participated in the crime. He was seen in the CCTV footage as a member of unlawful assembly. So, he does not deserve concession of anticipatory bail. Heard.
As per the allegations in the present FIR, no injury or specific role has been attributed to the petitioner. Even alleged threatening calls
were made by someone else and not the petitioner. Moreover, the matter has said to be compromised between the parties. As custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for any purpose, so, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. In the event of arrest, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on furnishing bail/surety bonds, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer, subject to the conditions, as provided under Section 482(2) of BNSS. It will be open for the Investigating Officer to call the petitioner to join investigation, if so required, by issuing a written notice in this regard. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions mentioned in Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of along with the present petition.
August 12, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?
Yes/No.
Whether reportable ?
Yes/No.