Gurbir Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH DECIDED ON: 23.03.2026 GURBIR SINGH .....PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR .....RESPONDENTS

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.

Present:

Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate, and Mr. Dushant Dhawan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Manjinder Singh Bhullar, DAG, Punjab.

Ms. Jigyasa Kharbanda, Advocate, for the 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 & age of Petitioner FIR No.

Date Section(s) Police Station District (s) Gurbir Singh, aged about 50 years 27.11.2025 353(2), 356(2), 352 of BNS, Sadar Tarn Taran Tarn Taran 2.

After hearing the submissions addressed by counsel for the petitioner, on 19.12.2025, following order was passed:- "2.

Incident in question allegedly occurred when the complainant, Karamveer Singh, Advocate,

was arguing a bail application before the Court of Sessions at Tarn Taran on behalf of accused Tejbir Singh. During the course of the proceedings, it is alleged that petitioner, Gurbir Singh, who is a Government employee, used derogatory language against the complainant, thereby not only showing disrespect to the legal profession but also bringing disrepute to it, that too, while the proceedings were being conducted in open Court.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that even if the allegations are taken at their face value, that petitioner addressed the complainant, Karamveer Singh, as a "Khalistani", same would not constitute any offence. It is further submitted that petitioner's application for anticipatory bail has already been dismissed by learned Judge, Special Court, Tarn Taran, while observing that petitioner had used highly defamatory and scandalous language with the intent to scandalize the entire judicial structure of the country.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, in view of the nature of allegations, custodial interrogation of the petitioner would not serve any meaningful purpose. Thus, prayer is made for grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present case.

5.

Notice of motion.

6.

On advance notice, Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab, puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent - State, and Mr. Harjot Singh Mann, Advocate, puts in appearance (through VC mode) along with Ms. Jigyasa Kharbanda, Advocate, who is present in the Court, on behalf of the complainant, and files his vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record.

7.

Before proceeding further, this Court deems it appropriate to direct both the complainant - Karamveer Singh and petitioner - Gurbir Singh, to appear before this Court on the next date of hearing, i.e. 24.12.2025.

8.

Let the present petition be taken up as the last case of the day or at 2:00 p.m., whichever is earlier, on the aforesaid date.

9.

Meanwhile, petitioner shall not be arrested. However, issue of joining of investigation by the petitioner would be examined on the next date of hearing, after reviewing the status report, which is yet to be filed by learned State counsel."

3.

On 24.12.2025, when complainant-Karamveer Singh, appeared through his counsel, Mr. Harjot Singh Mann, he was impleaded as respondent No.2 in the present petition.

Thereafter, with a view to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement, the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, while granting interim protection to the petitioner from arrest.

4.

Pursuant to the said reference, complainant initially expressed his willingness to resolve the dispute through mediation and conveyed that he was not averse to participating in the mediation proceedings.

5.

However, as per the report dated 11.02.2026 received from Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, the matter remained unsettled.

Further, the report indicates that complainant failed to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court after attending the proceedings on the first two dates.

6.

This Court has heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has carefully perused the record available before it.

7.

Considering the conduct of the parties, it appears that the issue is being unnecessarily prolonged on one pretext or another, whereas the matter warrants expeditious disposal in accordance with law. 8.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances and the allegations levelled in the present case, and upon forming a prima facie opinion, this

Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is unlikely to serve any meaningful purpose in furtherance of the prosecution case.

9.

Accordingly, present petition stands disposed of, with a direction to the petitioner to join the investigation within two weeks from today, or as and when called by the investigating agency, and in the eventuality of the arrest, petitioner would be released on anticipatory 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.). 10.

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. 11.

With the directions recorded here above, present petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) 23.03.2026 JUDGE Lavisha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No