212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-50064-2025 Date of Decision: 18.12.2025 SUKHCHAIN SINGH ......... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : None.

****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral)

1. Today, lawyers are abstaining from work.

2. Prayer in this petition under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.10 dated 14.02.2025, registered under Sections 25/29/35 of Arms Act (Sections 338/336(2), 340, 61(2) of BNS, 2023 also added) at Police Station Valtoha, District Tarn Taran.

3. On 03.11.2025, the following order was passed:-

“Prayer in this second petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.10 dated 14.02.2025, registered under Sections 25/29/35 of Arms Act (Sections 338/336(2), 340, 61(2) of BNS, 2023 also added) at Police Station Valtoha, District Tarn Taran.

Status report by way of an affidavit of Preetinder Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Valtoha, Camp at Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran, filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel have been heard and material collected by the police during investigation has been perused.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that initially the petitioner had been nominated as an accused for the offence under Sections 25, 29, 35 of Arms Act and was released on anticipatory bail by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran vide order dated 17.03.2025 (Annexure P-5). Subsequently, it has been found that the weapon recovered from the co-accused which was allegedly owned by the petitioner was unlicensed as the arms licence produced by the petitioner was found to be fake. Learned counsel further contended that the police during investigation had checked the arms licence from the bar code, according to which the licence had been issued by the concerned authority but on physical verification, it has been found to be fake. Learned counsel next contended that petitioner had got the arms licence prepared through some agent working in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Tarn Taran and he himself has been cheated. Learned counsel contended that petitioner is ready to join the investigation and to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the Court and benefit of anticipatory bail be extended in his favour. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the bail and argued that petitioner has committed a heinous offence and he does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.

Adjourned to 18.12.2025 In the 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.”

4. Today ASI Avtar Singh, informed this Court that the petitioner has joined the investigation, in compliance of the order dated

03.11.2025 and is no longer required for further investigation.

5. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 03.11.2025, whereby the petitioner was granted interim anticipatory bail, is hereby made absolute. However, he shall continue to join investigation