Sourav Sharma v. State Of Punjab
CRM-M-48947-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-48947-2024 Date of Decision: 02.04.2025 SOURAV SHARMA ......... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ......... Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present:- Ms. Sonia Mittal, Advocate for Ms. Riffi Birla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Navreet Kaur Barnala, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL) FIR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 29.12.2023 Kulgari, Distt.
Ferozepur 302, 148, 149 IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act (Sections 307, 324, 323, 506 IPC added later on) 1.
The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail 2.
In compliance of previous order dated 04.03.2025, Superintendent of Police (Investigation), District Ferozepur has filed the status report. The same is taken on record. It would be appropriate to refer following portions of the status report: "4. That it is most respectfully submitted that Janak Rani wife of Ram Parkash (mother of present petitioner) moved an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur for declaring the petitioner as innocent in this case. The said application bears UID no.554862 dated 21.03.2025 and the same was marked for investigation to answering deponent and the answering deponent investigated the matter.
5. That during investigation, the answering deponent visited the spot i.e. village Bazidpur, Tehsil and District Ferozepur, where the occurrence took JYOTI 2025.04.04 09:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-48947-2024 place. The matter was thoroughly investigated from the local residents by the answering deponent and during investigation, it was found that on 28.12.2023 at about 3.00 PM, Rajesh Kumar Sharma alias Teetu etc. have caused injuries to Saurav Sharma (Deceased) son of Balwinder Singh and committed his murder, at that time Saurav Sharma son of Ram Parkash (present petitioner) was neither present at the place of occurrence nor caused any injuries to Saurav Sharma son of Balwinder Singh. That it is submitted that on the day of occurrence, Saurav Sharma petitioner was present at the shop of Gurdev Singh i.e. Preet Kheti Store, where he has been working from the last one year. The shop of Gurdev Singh is adjacent to his house and the CCTV cameras installed in front of his house were duly checked and at about 3.
00 PM, Saurav Kumar son of Ram Parkash (present petitioner) was found to be present in the Cow shed (Haveli) of Gurdev Singh. The said fact was also certified by Gurdev Singh son of Gurmej Singh, Harpinder Singh son of Sukhdev Singh, Manpreet Sharma son of Kulwant Rai, Kulwant Rai son of Malook Chand, Gurpreet Singh son of Gurjit Singh and Jagjit Singh son of Hari Singh, whose statements were also recorded during investigation. Furthermore witness the of the occurrence namely Manoj Kumar son of Rajinder Singh in his statement, specifically stated that Rajesh alias Titu, who was armed with Takua and his son Vishal Sharma who was armed with axe caused injuries to Saurav Sharma son of Balwinder Kumar, when he was lying on the ground."
3.
Given the stand taken by the concerned Superintendent of Police in the status report dated 01.04.2025, there is no apprehension of the petitioner being arrested, as such, the present petition is disposed of as infructuous with clarification that in case the investigator wants to arrest the petitioner, then he shall be provided five days written notice to avail his legal rights in accordance with law. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 02.04.2025 Jyoti-II Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No JYOTI 2025.04.04 09:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.