IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

225 Decided on: 14.01.2025 Surti Singh @ Surti and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Sukhdev Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Navinderjit Singh Dandiwal, Advocate for the complainant.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

14 22.01.2024 Bhindi Saidan, 324, 323, 452, 379, 427, 148, District Amritsar 149 IPC (Later on added Sections 325/326 IPC)

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. In paragraph 15 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

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

“2. That the brief and relevant facts of the case are that aforesaid FIR No. 14 dated 22.01.2024 was registered on the basis of the statement of Karam Singh son of Shingara Singh, who had alleged therein that on 14.01.2024 at about 11:00 AM, there was a minor altercation between him and Nishan Singh and Vir Singh (petitioner No.2) relating to water outflow but the matter was settled with the intervention of respectable persons. Thereafter at about 02:00 PM, his maternal uncle Bhagwan Singh and Satpal Singh son of his maternal uncle had came to his house and in the meantime, Nishan Singh, Darshan Singh, Kashmir Singh (petitioner No.4), Vir Singh (petitioner No.2), Bhan Singh, Bittu Singh, Gujjar Singh, Lakha Singh, Gurmej Singh (petitioner No.3), Jagga Singh, Kalu Singh, Surti Singh (petitioner No.1), Dhava Singh, Kashmir Singh and Bagga Singh all armed with weapons like datars, baseball bat, dang, iron rods forcibly trespassed into his house and the co-accused Nishan Singh raised a lalkara to teach him a lesson for digging a water channel outside their house and caused injury on his head with a blow of datar and Veer Singh (petitioner No.2) caused injury on his hand with a blow of iron rod. He further alleged that when his maternal uncle Bhagwan Singh and Satpal Singh son of his maternal uncle came forward to rescue him, Gujjar Singh caused injury on the left elbow of his maternal uncle Bhagwan Singh with a blow of iron rod and the co-accused Bagha Singh caused injury on back of Bhagwan Singh with a blow of a baseball bat. He further alleged that the co-accused Lakha Singh and Bittu Singh caused injuries on the backside of head and back of Bhagwan Singh with the respective blows of datar and rod and Jagga Singh, Kalu Singh, Dhava Singh, Kashmir Singh (petitioner No.4), Gurmej Singh (petitioner No.3), Surti Singh (petitioner No.1) and Bhan Singh caused injuries on the right wrist, right side of head, left side of head, right shoulder, right arm, right thigh and right leg of Satpal Singh, son of his maternal uncle with the respective blows of rod, datar, baseball bat, dang and the unidentified 8/10 persons damaged the window panes, washing machine. He further alleged that when his family members raised hue and cry for help, the aforesaid accused took away one computer and Z-62 camera. The detailed facts mentioned by the complainant Karam Singh in his aforesaid statement has been reproduced in the true translation of the aforesaid FIR No. 14 dated 22.01.2024 attached with the petition as Annexure P-1, which may kindly be read as a part of present paragraph as same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.”

4. Petitioners’ counsel submits that there is a cross case and the petitioners have been falsely implicated. The petitioners’ counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioners and their family.

5. State counsel does not dispute about the cross case but opposes the bail.

6. It would be appropriate to ref