IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 29^th January, 2026 Aman Kumar @ Namni ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

(through VC)

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

Mr. Shahid Answer Choudhary, Advocate for the complainant.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No. 168 dated 03.09.2025 registered under Sections 309(4), 61(2), 127(2), 304, 115(2), 191(3), 190 and 310(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) (Section 310(2) BNS added later on during investigation vide Rapat No.28 dated 07.10.2025, Section 309(2) of BNS was removed) and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station City Sangrur, District Sangrur.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Lovepreet Singh @ Labbu on 03.09.2025 alleging therein that in the year 2023, a dispute had taken place between him and accused Money Singh, while they were studying in college. Though later on, they had reconciled over phone but Money Singh was nursing a grudge against him. He had been confined to jail subsequently in some other cases and after his release, he started extending threats to him (complainant). He alleged that on 03.09.2025, he along with his friends Satguru Singh and Pavitar Singh was present near Gaushala road, Sangrur, when Harman @ Bablu who was acquainted with him, reached there and offered that he would help the complainant in arriving at a reconciliation with Money Singh. He induced the complainant to accompany him. For this purpose, the complainant along with his friend, boarded the car of Harman, who took them to a house located at Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Sangrur, where the accused Money Singh, along with the petitioner, co-accused Vikram Singh and some persons unknown to the complainant, was present. They confined the complainant and his companions in the separate rooms. The accused Vikram Singh pointed a pistol upon him, snatched his cell phone, removed his silver neck chain. All of them, stripped him and while extending threats to him, recorded a video after forcing him to apologize. The petitioner and Money Singh, who were armed with rods then opened an assault upon him along with the other persons thereby causing several injuries on his person. Thereafter, they took the keys of his car and fled away. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide order dated

16.10.2025.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The medico legal report of the complainant shows that only three minor injuries had been sustained by him which do not correspond to the version as given by the complainant qua use of rods by the petitioner and others. There is no forensic electronic or any other evidence to link him with the alleged crime. No recovery is to be effected from him. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. Pendency of other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of anticipatory bail to him. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be given benefit of pre-arrest bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel while supporting the contents of the status report and assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner, who is a habitual offender being involved in five other cases of serious nature. Specific acts have been attributed to him