SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(P&H) 1478

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Gurcharan Singh And Others - Petitioners
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondents
CRM-M-33799-2025 (O&M), CRM-M-34461-2025 (O&M), CRM-M-39149-2025 (O&M)
Decided On : 09-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate
Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, Dag, Punjab.
For the Complainant :Mr. Bhupinder Singh Kundra, Advocate

Anticipatory bail should be granted when the allegations do not warrant custodial interrogation, especially in cases with simple injuries and clean antecedents.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 329(3), 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 191, 190 - Anticipatory bail - The petitioners apprehending arrest sought relief and argued against pre-trial incarceration citing clean antecedents and the nature of injuries sustained by the complainant as being simple, which did not justify custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration. (Paras 1, 11, 12, 14)

(B) Bail - The philosophy behind bail permits presumption of innocence and articulates that personal liberty should be curtailed only when it is imperative based on the peculiar facts of the case. (Paras 11, 20)

Facts of the case:
The FIR was registered following a dispute over land involving the complainant and the petitioners, alleging physical assault with various weapons that resulted in injuries. Delays in the FIR registration were noted, and the injuries were classified as simple in nature, indicating a lack of intention to cause serious harm.

Findings of Court:
The court granted anticipatory bail, imposing conditions to ensure compliance and prevent further offences while recognizing the right to personal liberty.

Issues: Whether custodial interrogation is justified, considering the nature of allegations and injuries.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that personal liberty must not be denied without compelling justification, citing the need for balance in bail conditions.

Result: Petition(s) allowed.

Table of Content
1. petitioners seeking anticipatory bail due to apprehension of arrest. (Para 1 , 3)
2. arguments concerning bail and threats to complainant. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. analysis of bail law and presumption of innocence. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
4. conditional approval of bail based on specific terms. (Para 14 , 18)
5. final order granting bail with specified conditions. (Para 15 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 29)

JUDGMENT :

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
4401.06.2025

Mulepur, District Fatehgarh Sahib

329(3), 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 191 and 190 BNS

This order shall dispose of three petitions i.e. CRM-M-33799-2025, CRM-M- 34461-2025 and CRM-M-39149-2025, as the same have arisen out of common FIR and common prayer has been made in all the petitions. However, for brevity, facts are being taken from CRM-M-33799-2025.

1. The petitioners apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above have come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [ BNSS ], seeking anticipatory bail.

2. As per paragraph 14 of the petition(s), the petitioners have clean antecedents.

3. The facts and allegations are being taken from para 2 of the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows:

“2. That the brief facts of the case are that the present FIR was registered on the statement of Nirmal Singh, who stated to the effect that,

(i) He is an agriculturist. They are two brothers. They have 15 acres of land. He and his brother Ranjit Singh had executed an agreement with Harpreet Singh on 15.04.2019 for 28 kanals of land. The opposite party did not get executed sale deed within the stipulated period and filed a court case against them. Thereafter, they entered into a compromise on 06.05.2023. He had issued a security cheque bearing no.069489 for Rs.18 lakhs in favour of Harpreet Singh.

(ii) On 21.07.2023, the complainant had paid the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs in cash in the presence of witness Beant Singh, son of Bachan Singh. Harpreet Singh had executed power of attorney in favour of Gurdeep Singh to file a court case against them. The agreement was got written by Ranjit Singh. The remaining amount of Rs.8 lakhs was to be paid to Harpreet Singh on 24.05.2025. Harpreet Singh refused to take the amount.

(iii) On 25.05.2025, at about 7:30 pm, he and his brother Ranjit Singh, sister-in-law Charanjit Kaur and his wife Harpreet Kaur were sowing the land near their motor. Then on the land on the other side, two tractors i.e. Sonalika and make Ford. Sonalika tractor was being driven by Gurcharan Singh (petitioner no.1) and Ford tractor was being driven by an unknown person. They started irrigating the land of the complainant forcibly.

(iv) The complainant further stated that he and his brother Harjit Singh, sister-in-law Charanjit Kaur and his wife Harpreet Kaur restrained their tractors but the said individuals threatened to irrigate their land. On questioning, Harjit Singh gave a kirpan blow on the right eye of the complainant. Blood started oozing out. The complainant raised alarm then his brother Ranjit Singh and sister- in-law Charanjit Kaur started rescuing him then Hardeep Singh (petitioner no.2), Gursewak Singh (petitioner no.3) gave blows with sticks to his brother Ranjit Singh and sister-in-law Charanjit Kaur, and gave leg blows to their stomachs. His sister-in-law fell unconscious. In the meantime, Gurcharan Singh (petitioner no.1) gave a blow with stick on the head of the complainant. When he tried to escape, Harjit Singh gave a blow with kirpan which hit his upper left arm. Blood started oozing out from his arm. Then, Jaswinder Singh (petitioner no.4), Anaib Singh (petitioner no.5), Hardeep Singh, Ajaib Singh, Gursewak Singh, Manpreet Singh, Swaran Singh, Sukhpreet Singh, Randhir Singh gave blows with soties to them. Harpreet Singh, Gurpreet Singh (petitioner no.7) were armed with kirpans and they raised lalkara not to let them go on that day. They threatened to kill them. Manpreet Singh tri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top