Shamsher Singh v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 22.08.2025 Shamsher Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present:
Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate for Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Bhisham Kinger, Advocate for the complainant. SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL) 1.
Relief sought The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in petitioner in case FIR No.96, dated 28.05.2025, registered under Sections 109, 351(2), 351(3), 308(5), 115(2), 190, 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 25,54,59 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Khalra, District Tarn Taran (Annexure P-2).
3.
Contention On behalf of the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicacted in the present case. He submits that alleged injury
attributed to the petitioner is at the non-vital part of the body. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Co-accused Lovepreet Singh and Ranjeet Singh have already been granted concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide orders dated 19.09.2025 passed in CRM-M-44724-2025 and order dated 17.07.2025 passed in CRM-M-37487-2025 respectively.
Notice of motion.
On behalf of the State On the asking of the Court, Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State, who vehemently opposes the prayer stating that the petitioner was part of the unlawful assembly and the injuries attributed to him are serious in nature.
On behalf of the complainant Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the prayer urging that the disclosure statement specifies that the petitioner had caused stick blow but he could not controvert the fact that the injury was inflicted on hand. Both the State counsel as also counsel for the complainant failed to substantiate that the injuries caused by the petitioner were either grievous or dangerous to life.
4.
Analysis Be that as it may, upon due consideration of the submissions advanced and, in particular, taking note of the fact that though the petitioner was part of unlawful assembly, but no fatal injury has been attributed to him and coaccused Lovepreet Singh and Ranjeet Singh have already been granted concession of anticipatory bail by this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted at this stage as nothing is to be recovered from him. Hence, this Court finds no reason to deny the petitioner the concession of anticipatory bail, wherein the petitioner has bona fide intentions
and is willing to join the investigation and cooperate for furtherance of the same so that the final report can be submitted by the Investigating Agency within the stipulated time period.
5.
Relief In the light of above, the petitioner is directed to be released on anticipatory bail subject to him joining investigation with the Investigating Officer concerned within a period of one week from today, on furnishing of personal/surety bonds to his satisfaction for the reason that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required as it would be of no fruitful purpose to put the petitioner behind the bars.
(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;
(iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section.' However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner does not comply with the aforesaid direction of joining the investigation within a period of one
week and comply with the aforesaid condition under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023, the order passed by this Court today shall automatically stands cancelled. In the aforesaid terms, the present petition stands allowed. ( SANDEEP MOUDGIL ) JUDGE 22.08.2025 manoj Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No