Rupinder Singh v. State Of Punjab
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of Decision:- 19.11.2025 Rupinder Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present:- Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.
***** SUBHAS MEHLA , J. (Oral) 1.
The instant petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.170 dated 21.09.2025, registered under Section 125 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran. 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He was not armed with any weapon. He is not seen firing from any weapon in the video, which went viral on social media wherein the petitioner along with 10-12 unknown persons were seen, and gunshots were being fired in the air whereas it was the coaccused, who fired gun-shot. Learned counsel prayed for anticipatory bail as the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation. 3.
Notice of motion.
( 2 ) 4.
Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab, puts in appearance as advance copy of petition had been served to respondent-State, and opposed the present petition by submitting that the co-accused gathered at the house of the present petitioner and they fired several rounds from many weapons which are visible in the video and even the presence of the present petitioner is seen in the video, which became viral on social media. Learned State Counsel also showed the aforesaid video to the Court. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the present petition.
5.
Heard.
6.
Keeping in view the facts of the present case; contentions of learned counsel of parties; co-accused gathered at the house of the present petitioner/accused and several rounds were fired in the air with 5-6 weapons at behest of the present petitioner/accused, in order to scare his neighbours; allegations against the present petitioner are serious in nature; the matter requires thorough investigation to find out whether weapons seen in the video are legal or illegal, as well as to find out names of the persons gathered at petitioner/accused's house on that day, hence, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition seeking anticipatory bail of the petitioner. 7.
Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasised the importance of custodial interrogation in case titled as 'CBI Vs. Anil Sharma, 1997 AIR Supreme Court 3806' decided on 03.08.1997, as under:- "....custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation orientated than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations
( 3 ) and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring would not conduct themselves as offenders." 8.
In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the present petition stands dismissed. 9.
Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be an expression of opinion by this Court on the merits of the case. ( SUBHAS MEHLA ) 19.11.2025 JUDGE Geeta Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No