Bikramjit Singh @ Laddi v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-47634-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.106 CRM-M-47634-2025 Date of Decision: 28.08.2025 BIKRAMJIT SINGH @ LADDI

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present:- Mr. Ajay Kumar Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

Mr. S.S. Swaich, Advocate for the complainant. ***** SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.41 dated 31.07.2025, registered under Sections 115, 118(2), 126(2), 351(2), 3(5) BNS, 2023 at Police Station Handesra, District SAS Nagar. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that co-accused is son of maternal uncle of the petitioner and has civil litigation with the complainant. Due to this reason he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and except the offence under Section 118(2) of BNS, 2023, other offences are bailable in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that occurrence took place on 27.07.2025, whereas the FIR had been lodged on 31.07.2025 i.e. after a delay of 4 days. 3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G. Punjab accepted notice on MAHIMA 2025.09.03 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

CRM-M-47634-2025 behalf of State.

5.

Mr. S.S. Swaich, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of complainant and filed vakalatnama, which is taken on record. 6.

Learned State counsel contended that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation and recovery of weapon used in the commission of crime is yet to be effected. There are serious allegations qua petitioner regarding his involvement in the commission of offence and the ocular version of the complainant is also supported by medical record. 7.

Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that specific role is attributed to the present petitioner as he gave iron rod blow to the complainant at his left leg and right arm, due to which he suffered fracture on his arms and legs.

8.

Heard.

9.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, there are serious allegations against the present petitioner, injured suffered composite fractures, version of injured find support from medical record, recovery of weapon is yet to be effected, custodial interrogation of petitioner is required. No case is made out to grant the relief of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. This Court is not inclined to grant concession of prearrest bail to the petitioner. Hence, the present petition is accordingly dismissed.

(SUBHAS MEHLA) 28.08.2025 JUDGE mahima Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No MAHIMA 2025.09.03 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh