Deepak Kumar v. State Of Punjab And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.210 Case No. : CRM-M-41300-2025 Decided On : November 03, 2025 Deepak Kumar ....
Petitioner vs.
State of Punjab and another ....
Respondents CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.
* * * Present :
Mr. A. P. Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P. S. Pandher, AAG, Punjab.
* * * 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.0070 dated 17.06.2025, under Section 140(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, registered at Police Station Daba, District Ludhiana.
Briefly, the aforesaid FIR was registered on the basis of statement made by one Manjit Pal Singh that his son namely Tarunjit Singh had been kidnapped by 6-7 persons on 15.06.2025. On basis of secret information, a car bearing No. HR-20-AG-4998, Mark Tata Tiago was found near vacant plot near Rudra Dharam Kanda and driver of car disclosed his name as Rajesh Yadav, while the other persons named themselves as Gagandeep, Aman Yadav, Mohit and Sunny Rajat. It was stated by the kidnapped Tarunjit that the said accused took him from his shop and slapped him. During interrogation, the co-accused named the petitioner Deepak,
being the one on whose motorcycle Tarunjit was kidnapped. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no offence under Section 140(3) BNS is made out against the petitioner as no overt act is attributed to the petitioner. He was not named in the FIR and has been nominated only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner and complainant - both are residents of same vicinity and in order to keep peace and harmony, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. Now, both the parties do not have any grouse against each other. The petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation. He has urged that the petitioner is not required for any interrogation and no recovery is to be effected from him and has, therefore, prayed that the petitioner be granted concession of anticipatory bail.
Learned State counsel has opposed the present bail petition and contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious as he, in active connivance with his associates, kidnapped Tarunjit Singh, made him sit on the motorcycle in between and subjected him to slaps and beatings, thereby causing immense fear and trauma to him. So, his custodial interrogation is required for fair and proper investigation and he does not deserve concession of anticipatory bail.
Heard.
As per the allegations in the present FIR, the petitioner also participated in abduction of Tarunjit Singh, compelled him to sit in the middle of his motorcycle and subjected him to slaps during kidnapping. The FIR had been registered against the unknown persons. The petitioner was nominated as accused vide DDR No.13 dated 18.06.2025. The co-accused
namely Gagandeep, Aman Yadav, Mohit and Sunny had already been granted concession of regular bail by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana vide order dated 19.07.2025. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that compromise had already been effected between the parties and quashing petition (CRM-M-385862025) had also been filed before this Court, which is pending for 08.12.2025. No other criminal case is found to be registered against the petitioner. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for any purpose and nothing is to be recovered from him. 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.
November 03, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?
Yes/No.
Whether reportable ?
Yes/No.