Gursewak Singh v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-46258-2025 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-46258-2025 Date of Decision : 25.08.2025 GURSEWAK SINGH .... PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB .... RESPONDENT CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present :

Mr.Amit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (Oral) 1.

Prayer is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.80 dated 21.05.2025 registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023 (offence under Section 118(2) of BNS added later on) at Police Station Jhabal, District Tarn Taran. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the coaccused namely Gurdeep Singh and Gurtej Singh @ Gurbhej Singh have been granted anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Annexues P-1 and P-4 on the file and case of the present petitioner is on same footing.

3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Mr. Subhash Godara, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and submitted that the case of the present petitioner is not on same footing. The allegation against the Anju Goel 2025.08.28 13:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-46258-2025 -2present petitioner is that he gave a sword blow on the cheek, head and the right hand of the complainant who remained in the hospital for 08 days. The delay in lodging the FIR occurred on account of compromise talks. He prayed for dismissal of the anticipatory bail on the ground that as per Section 326 IPC, life imprisonment is one of the prescribed punishments and in view of the gravity of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.

5.

Heard.

6.

I have duly considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel. 7.

As the allegation against the present petitioner is that he gave a sword blow on cheek as well as on the head of the complainant who remained hospitalized for 08 days and the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation as recovery of weapon of offence is yet to be effected from him. This Court is of the considered view that no ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out. 8.

Dismissed.

(SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE 25.08. 2025 anju Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No Anju Goel 2025.08.28 13:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh