Palwinder Singh Alias Pindu v. State Of Punjab
105 17.12.2024 103(1), 109, 61(2), 62, 190, 191(3), 351(2) of BNS, and 25, 27 of Arms Act, and offence under section 117(2), 118(1) of BNS has been added later on, vide rapat No.18 dated 26.12.2024 Chola Sahib Tarn Taran !
" # ! $% & ' $(& ) # * # + "
,-
$
& .
#
# / *01* )
,#
! 2* $ &3 # - 4 ,
- Davinder Singh also suffered injuries. Specific roles in the incident, assigned to the members of the accused party in the FIR, are as under:-
1 5
Pistol Raised lalkara of catching hold and to teach lesson "
Dang Raised lalkara of catching hold and to teach lesson
Dang 6 5
75 Dattar * 8
Single barrel gun 9 .
.12 bore gun Fired at chest of Shamsher Singh
2 .
Empty handed : 4
.12 bore gun Fired at Davinder Singh at left buttock ; #
Gandasa 1 5
Base ball 11 ,-
Empty handed 1 ) -
Dang 1 <
Hockey 16
Empty handed Drivind tractor and attempted to run over his tractor on the complainant .3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, in connection with the same incident, a cross-version has been recorded, vide DDR No.18 dated 26.12.2024 at the instance of co-accused Davinder Singh (Annexure P-6), highlighting that members of the petitioner's party also sustained injuries during the occurrence. Referring to this factual position, counsel submits that it will be a significant issue before learned trial Court to determine, which party was the aggressor and who holds actual possession of the disputed land. It is further submitted that petitioner's father and forefathers have been cultivating approximately 40 acres of land in the Mand area, situated across the Beas River, for the past about 14 years.
Complainant party, too, has possession of around 15-16 acres of land in the same vicinity. However, since the fields lack demarcated boundaries, disputes have repeatedly arisen concerning actual possession of specific parcels of land. In fact, on the same issue, an earlier FIR No.11 dated 24.02.2024 had been registered at Police Station Chohla Sahib, District Tarn Taran, against the complainant side (Annexure P-4).
4. Role attributed to the petitioner is that he was driving the tractor and, as per the allegations, he attempted to run over the tractor on complainant, Mahinder Singh. However, it is significant to note that no injury has been sustained by the complainant as a result of the alleged attempt of running over the tractor at the instance of the petitioner.
It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that one of the co-accused, Yodbir Singh, who was allegedly emptyhanded and not attributed any specific injury, has already been
granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court, vide order dated 21.07.2025 passed in CRM-M-34551-2025 (Annexure P-1). 5.
It is further submitted that role assigned to the petitioner is almost identical to that of co-accused Yodbir Singh. Further, it is contended that, in the absence of any corroborative or specific evidence, other than a verbal allegation, petitioner, who is neither shown to be armed with a firearm nor alleged to have caused any grievous injury, deserves to be treated at par with co-accused Yodbir Singh, and, is therefore, entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, especially as he is willing to join the investigation and cooperate fully. Thus, counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present case.
6.
Notice of motion.
7.
On advance notice, Mr. Neeraj Madaan, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, appears on behalf of the respondent/State and Ms. Poonam Singh Thakur, Advocate, puts an appearance on behalf of the complainant.
8.
By opposing the anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present case, learned State counsel refers to (1) order dated 13.05.2025 order dated 13.05.2025 passed in CRM-M-25802-2025 RM-M-25802-2025 titled Jobanpreet Singh @ Joban Singh vs. State of Punjab; (2) common order dated 26.05.2025 order dated 26.05.2025 order dated 26.05.2025 passed in CRM-M-27020-2025 titled Veer Singh vs. State of Punjab and CRM-M-27022-2025 titled Avtar Singh vs. State of Punjab; and (3) order dated order dated 18.06.2025 passed in 18.06.2025 CRM-M-32757-2025 in the case of Daljit Singh vs. State of Punjab. 9.
By relying on these decisions, learned State counsel submits that prayer for anticipatory bail in similar circumstances has already been declined by this Court, and therefore, petitioner in the present case, is also not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.
10.
Adjourned to 10.11.2025.
11.
Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating Agency. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on ad-interim bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall also be
abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.).
12.
Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over his passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport. It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of the Court. ".
% 2* % - #
' ( 6 = # - # >
# * ) 9
- # > ? ' ;* % )# - # > 6:$& ".
2
!"
"
" #
$ %&
'( )'* $+,-.
November 10, 2025 archana Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether Reportable:
Yes/No