Surjit Singh @ Surjeet Singh And ANR v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-57834-2024 - 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-57834-2024 Decided on : 19.05.2025 Surjit Singh @ Surjeet Singh and another . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Jasdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Mohit Pilania, Advocate for Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2/complainant.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1.

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- Name of Petitioner (s) FIR No.

Date Section(s) Police Station District Surjit Singh @ Surjeet Singh and Harmesh Singh 27.09.2024 115(2), 117(2), 324(2), Jalalabad Fazilka 304, 126(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2.

Counsel for the parties submits that parties to the dispute are related as husband and wife (as petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are husband and wife, whereas, petitioner No.2 is father of petitioner No.1). However, the dispute between the parties has now been amicably settled, and a compromise quashing petition has already been instituted before this JAWALA RAM 2025.05.20 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM-M-57834-2024 - 2 - Court, bearing CRM-M-26202-2025, titled as "Surjit Singh @ Surjeet Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others". In the said petition, parties have been directed to record their respective statements regarding the factum of compromise before the Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. The matter is now fixed for 31.07.2025 for awaiting the report. 3.

Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - complainant, also confirms the aforesaid fact.

4.

Even the learned State counsel affirms the aforesaid statement made by learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court today, and accordingly submits that, at this stage, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required for the purpose of investigation. 5.

Heard.

6.

Since the petitioners have resolved the dispute amicably and a compromise quashing petition has already been instituted by them before this Court for the said purpose, present petition is allowed and the ad-interim order dated 28.11.2024, is hereby made absolute. However, petitioners shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the terms and conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.

7.

Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE May 19, 2025 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2025.05.20 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document