Prabhjot Singh v. State Of Punjab









 

 


 
CRM-M-47028-2025 



 !"

# PRABHJOT SINGH  

 STATE OF PUNJAB  

  $

 %&
$
 '
( 
'
 )
*****
       



 !  " #

 ! $

 

  Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Senior DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the complainant.   %%%%% ( 
'
 )+

, -./ &  $  

' $ 

 !

()
 $ *+ 

,$

   $ 

'   

!-.+ () /
,

0

 !

/1 //)2
3 //)2/3 //02
3 /1 /1/2,3 $ *+ 

,2!


,) $*+4 

3    

!

 #

  5  !#

 



 &-.   !'   

" 

$!

"      6 4       $5   4



!

 #

 &   7 ! $   






 

  

 
 

 


 
!"#$ %&'''''!

 
(

 

 )
 


 
*
 +!
,
-.!-/!

- 0

 
$-

 
)

 
(




 *   

  !
1 
(


 
)
2
 
* 
3


*  
2

4 +

 
 
5

*
*
 

 
 

 

 
 
 



 

 
*  !
6 
 
 
3
 
7 




+  


 




8  


9 




 2 


9 




9 






: 
2 


9
 


 
9


 



 

2 


;

 
  
 

/&
+ 
 
 

(
 
+ 

*
* 
 

  
 


 !
3


+  

 


 2
 
*
 2

4 +
 
 

!
;


 
 
(
  



*



 
 
 


)

 
 
 
 )

*  !
;
 

8  


9 
 


+
 


*

<* 

+

** 


 





+



*


 

* 

 

 
)!
,
 
3  

, 





 
 
(


 

 


 
 


 
!
4 
+  
)


 
 * 

*+
 

  
 
8  

)
 
 

 
 
 



  !
4 
 2 

)

 

  

9 

)

 

   !
4 

2 

)


 


*+!
4 
(




 
 

(

 
9

* 



 
 

+ 
 

+*+


 * 
 


 


 


!
,
 
 
'& * 2
 
2

4 +
3


*  

 


*




!



 

$


!
(
 
* 



!
 




) *

 

 

7)
5 
 
 
 * 


= !
;
(

  

 










 


*   !

(
 

  

 * 


 *
 
3 !
3


7 
 
+  


 
 
8  


9 
 
 2 


9 
 
9 



 
2 


9
 
9


 

 
 




 

 
+ 
 


+
!
*

* 
 

+

 !
(>

)
2*!








* *!
 



 
 



) 


;(
(* 
 *
 
3 


 

$ !-/!

- 0!? , 8

!

 



' $ $ 

  $

  " 

( i)

  !

    

 $  -.  4   !

"    '

 

$!   :

 4 !4  

 $  !

!!

*   '

 "4  !

"         '

4  

  '

4.  '"   

$ ! *  4  !  :

;+ )   ';      6  4       " ' 

  

  4   '

; $ :

; ' ! ';$  ; !

'



 ii) 9

  !

     '

$  :

;     

 

<

4  '

  :

; '  $

   '  "  

  !   $$ !

 !

 /1 *+ 

, !

 '  !  ! $   

.  '" ! $ 

4

 '

' $

 *    :

; !  !

/1!

'  ' '

'

  

  iii)  !

   4   ! $    !

!!



" ; =4       >4     !"  $

!

  

'$

 9

! $ 

$  ! *  4

'

 <

 $ 9

 !    ! 

;'  

4  "  It is thus claimed that parity of treatment be extended to the petitioner, at par with Beant Singh, to whom the concession of anticipatory

0 bail has already been granted by this Court vide order dated 24.07.2025 passed in CRM-M-33563-2025.

iv) He further contends that the true genesis of the occurrence has been concealed by the complainant and the co-accused Yadwinder Singh had himself sustained injuries in the incident. Hence, the petitioner intends to invoke the general defences under the right of private defence. The injuries having been caused in retaliation and in exercise of such right, the petitioner's version could not have been completely disregarded by the Investigating Agency.

4.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State as well as the complainant on the other hand, contend that the argument of the petitioner is not based upon a correct appreciation of the dispute involved in the present case. They contend that the injured Randhir Singh had sustained 06 injuries on his skull, which were on account of sharp-edged weapons, i.e. incised weapons. The petitioner is attributed an injury with a datar on the skull. They contend that merely because in the narration of facts, the complainant contended that the co-accused Beant Singh had attempted to give a blow with an intention to kill him, on the head, would not in any way dilute the role of the other accused who were also attributed injuries on a vital part, i.e. head of the accused. The circumstances cumulatively would be essential for determining the intent. The receipt of the injury caused and the nature of the weapon used are reflective of the intent and knowledge that is

? inherent for attracting an offence under Section 109 BNS, 2023. Thus, the argument is bereft of merit.

5.

It is further argued that so far as the submission of concealment of the true genesis of the occurrence is concerned, the said argument at best could have inured in favour co-accused Yadwinder Singh. They contend that the said co-accused, who sustained injuries, had approached this Court for seeking concession of pre-arrest bail, however, the said bail petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 27.05.2025 passed in CRM-M29809-2025. He submits that the anticipatory bail of both the co-accused, namely Yadwinder Singh and Jaswinder Singh having been dismissed, the case of the petitioner is at par with the case of the said co-accused. They further contend that co-accused Sukhwinder Singh, to whom another head injury was attributed, was arrested and released on regular bail.

It is thus contended that the case of the petitioner would rather be at par with the said co-accused. They contend that the petitioner cannot claim parity with Beant Singh since the opinion of the medical board, relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioner, would at best create a defence in favour of Beant Singh and for which such reason, the concession of pre-arrest bail already stands extended to him vide order dated 24.07.2025. The role of the petitioner being distinguishable and not at parity with Beant Singh, such an artificial distinction solely for the purpose of claiming the concession of anticipatory bail would be akin to creating a technical argument without any substratum of merit.

 6.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the case of the petitioner would not be at any better footing as compared to the case of Yadwinder Singh and Jaswinder Singh, which had already been dismissed by this Court, I find that the case of the petitioner is devoid of merit. He has collectively caused injuries to the head of the victim/complainant Randhir Singh which such injuries, by their nature, have been inflicted on his skull and thus reflect the intent of the parties cumulatively. Consequently, the present petition deserves dismissal. Ordered accordingly.

,( 
'
 )/
   +





  @ 
 
@ < 6 



=6+ @ 

'

  =6+