High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/38349/2025allowed

Manpreet Singh @ Dalla v. State Of Punjab

2025-08-29Mrs. Justice Sukhvinder Kaur4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Sr. No.251 Case No. : CRM-M-38349-2025 Decided On : August 29, 2025 Manpreet Singh @ Dalla ....

Petitioner vs.

State of Punjab ....

Respondent CORAM :

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.

* * * Present :

Mr. Gurnoor Singh Sethi, Advocate with Mr. Yajur Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ravneet Singh Lekhi, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Kavinder Singh Chibber, Advocate for the complainant.

* * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J.

Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.104 dated 26.06.2025, under Sections 109, 118(1), 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, registered at Police Station Dirba, District Sangrur. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 25.06.2025 at about 06:30 PM, complainant namely Jasvir Singh was sitting in the shop of Ramphal Singh. A Swift car, which was being driven by the petitioner, stopped in front of said shop and two persons with muffled faces alighted from the car armed with naked swords. One of them attacked the complainant with intention to kill him but he raised his left arm to ward off

the blow and his left wrist got injured. Then, the other person gave the sword blow at the back of his left arm. A second blow with sword was again given to the petitioner by the first person which hit his left side of chest. Thereafter, second person gave three sword blows on the fingers of right hand of the complainant, who raised the alarm and people around gathered at the spot. The assailants fled away in the car along with their weapons. The petitioner was already seated in the car. The motive behind the attack was a previous fight between Ramphal Singh and the assailants, in which the complainant supported said Ramphal Singh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is delay of 24 hours in lodging of FIR, thereby casting doubt on the prosecution version. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Neither any overt act nor any specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner was not involved in the earlier fight with owner of shop of the complainant. He urged that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and he is ready and willing to join the investigation. He has thus prayed that the petitioner be granted concession of anticipatory bail.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposed the present bail petition and contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave in nature as he along with other co-accused planned to commit the offence in question and facilitated commission of offence. He also apprised the Court that apart from the present case, nine more FIRs have been found to be registered against the petitioner. So, he does not deserve concession of anticipatory bail.

Heard.

In the present case, no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner. The injuries allegedly inflicted in the present case have been attributed to the other co-accused. As per the Status Report, injuries no.1, 2, 4 and 6 are simple in nature and injury no.5 is grievous one. Nature of injury no.3 could not be given as the patient was advised NCCT Chest but the record of CT Chest and surgical opinion was not available. It has also been pointed out by learned State counsel that nine more criminal cases have been found to be registered against the petitioner, details of which have been provided in Annexure R-1, that has been appended with the Status Report, perusal of which reveals that most of these cases have already been decided. In one case, he is under-trial and two cases are under investigation.

In one case, cancellation report has been accepted. As the petitioner was not alleged to be armed with any weapon and no injury has been attributed to him, so, recovery is to be effected from him. 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 29, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No.