IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

107 CRM-M-49641-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 08.09.2025 Sunil @Nata ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. K.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1. This is a petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of interim bail in a case arising out of FIR No.137 dated 31.07.2024 under Sections 103, 109, 191(3), 190, 115(2) and 324 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act, Police Station Sadar Ferozepur, District Ferozepur.

2. The present petition has been filed on the ground that father of the petitioner is suffering from heart ailment and advised for Angiography and Angioplasty. The petitioner has contended that he has two brothers, but they are not on talking terms with the father, and therefore, his presence is required during the treatment of his father.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appears on behalf of the respondent-State, and waives service. Learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner and status report. The same be taken on record.

5. Heard.

6. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur has dismissed the application for interim bail, preferred by the petitioner, without looking into the fact that presence of the petitioner, is required for the treatment of his father, and that the sole ground for arriving at such a conclusion is the pendency of number of criminal cases against the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, since the petitioner is craving for interim bail for the treatment of his father, such an aspect is not relevant in this case. 7. Per contra, learned State Counsel argues that the petitioner has a long criminal history. As per status report submitted by learned State Counsel, there are 18 criminal cases including 3 cases of murder and 4 cases under Section 307 of IPC, pending against the petitioner.

8. The record has been perused carefully.

9. A perusal of record shows that although this plea of the petitioner is prima facie established that his father is suffering from heart ailment and undergoing treatment, but the contents of petition itself shows that the petitioner has two brothers and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that absence of the petitioner at the time of treatment of his father will not make any material difference. In view of above, it is hereby held that the present petition has got no merit and deserves dismissal.

10. In view of above, the present petition is hereby dismissed.

11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)

JUDGE SEPTEMBER 08, 2025 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No