Anosh v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 05.02.2026 Anosh ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY
Present:
Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gautam Thapar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
AARADHNA SAWHNEY , J (ORAL) 1.
This order shall dispose of present petition for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner, an accused in case FIR No.159 dated 06.10.2025 under Sections 109 and 3(5) of BNS and Sections 25,27 of the Arms Act registered at P.S Sultanwind, District Police Commissionerate.
2.
Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Surjit Singh, submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is not longer required for further custodial interrogation.
3.
On 09.12.2025, following order was passed by this Court: "1. Prayer in this petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.159, dated 06.10.2025 registered at Police Station Sultanwind, District Police Commissionerate, Armitsar (Annexure P-1), under Sections 109 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and 25,27 of Arms Act, 1959.
2. Status report by way of affidavit dated 08.12.2025 of Kamaljeet Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police (South), Amritsar City (Additional Charge) filed on behalf of the respondent-State is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.
3. The present case was registered on the basis of the statement given to the police by Gupreet Singh alias Gopi with the allegation that on the intervening night of 05/06.10.2025 at about 12.05 am, he was standing outside the showroom of Royal Auto Dealers
along with his employees after finishing their work when the petitioner made a phone call to him claiming that the petitioner was living in the company of the complainant's wife Neetu and if he could dare to stop him, he may try to stop him. He alleged that his wife was living separately from him for the last one year due to some matrimonial dispute and she was living in a relationship with the petitioner and the petitioner was continuously threatening to harm him. Thereafter, the petitioner along with his accomplices Nanhi (Sikbir Singh alias Nanhi) and other unidentified persons came there on a motorcycle. Initially, he fired two shots from the pistol in the air and then fired a direct shot towards him with an intention to kill him, which hit the shutter of the showroom. On hearing hue and cry for help, the petitioner along with his accomplices fled away from the spot. After registration of the FIR, the police reached at the place of occurrence and inspected the same and recovered one empty shell and lead of the bullet from the spot.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, as the complainant's wife had a matrimonial dispute with him and she was now in a relationship with the petitioner and a false FIR has been got registered to settle the scores. Learned counsel next contended that no shot was fired by the petitioner and no one has suffered any injury. The weapon in question has allegedly been recovered from the co-accused Varun Kumar and nothing, thus, remains to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the Court and the benefit of anticipatory bail be extended in his favour.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the bail and argued that the petitioner has committed a heinous offence and he is the main accused who reached the spot after having heated arguments with the complainant and thereafter, fired a shot towards him with an intention to kill him. In view of the gravity of the offence, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.
6. The petitioner is living in a relationship with the wife of the complainant, which can be a motive for false implication as well.
No one has suffered any injury. The weapon in question has already been recovered from the co-accused, namely Varun Kumar and nothing remains to be recovered.
7. Adjourned to 05.02.2026.
8. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in the event of his arrest, he shall be admitted to ad-interim bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS [erstwhile Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.]:- i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court;
iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of Section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section. " 6.
Keeping in view the above submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as also the fact that the petitioner has joined the investigation, interim bail granted vide order dated 09.12.2025 is hereby confirmed, subject to conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) BNSS. Further the petitioner is directed to join investigation as and when required in future by way of written notice for such purpose to be served by Investigating Officer of this case upon the petitioner; he will not tamper with the evidence nor will influence the witnesses and will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. 7.
The petition stands allowed.
05.02.2026 ( AARADHNA SAWHNEY ) manoj JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No