IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Lovekaran Singh ……Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Punjab ……Respondent(s)

Decided on : 11.02.2026 Date of uploading: 11.02.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Ms. Ramandeep Kaur Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.361 dated 04.12.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 191(3), 190 and 109 of BNS 2023, at Police Station Division 5, District Ludhiana.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that the present FIR was registered at the instance of the complainant-Gurmail Singh, who in his complaint made to the police stated that on the 04.12.2025 at about 11:30 AM, he along with his friends Baljit Singh and Gobind Singh, was present in the District Courts Complex, Ludhiana with regard to case bearing FIR No.193 dated 03.10.2022 registered at Police Station City Jagraon, District Ludhiana. The said case was stated to be registered due to a fight between the complainant-side and the accused persons. He further stated that the accused persons/other side, namely Gulshan Kumar @ Sheru, Manpreet Singh @ Mani, Arsh, along with their associates Jashanpreet, Avi, Deepa, Kheera, Harman, Rato, Jot Dalla, Baljit Bouncer, Lovekaran, Nanna, Sukhwinder Singh, Harjot Singh and some other unknown persons, were also present there in connection with the hearing of their case. The complainant further stated that when he attempted to enter the Courtroom, all the aforesaid accused persons, having assembled there with a premeditated mind, restrained him. Gulshan Kumar @ Sheru allegedly exhorted his companions not to allow the complainant to enter the Courtroom and extended threats to kill him. Thereafter, Gulshan Kumar allegedly struck a blow on the head of the complainant with a karra (iron bracelet), while the other accused, namely Rato, Avi, Nanna, Harmanjit and Jashanpreet Singh, slapped him and inflicted fist blows. It is further alleged that they also struck him with their karras on various parts of his body. The complainant has further stated that he sustained injuries caused by a sharp- edged knife during the occurrence. Upon these set of allegations, the present FIR came to be registered against the petitioner and other accused persons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the FIR in question. It is contended that the petitioner has no nexus whatsoever with the alleged occurrence and has been roped in on account of prior dispute between the petitioner and the FIR- complainant side. It is argued that the allegations levelled in the complaint are concocted and improbable. It is also submitted that the FIR does not disclose material and essential facts, thereby casting serious doubt on its credibility and fairness. It is further argued that custodial interrogation should not be resorted to as a punitive measure and is warranted only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence, which is not the case herein. Moreover, the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency, and therefore no useful purpose would be served by sending him to judicial custody. Lastly, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be granted the concession of anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by contending that there are specific and categorical allegations against him in the FIR. It is argued that the accused persons were armed with iron karras and sharp-edged weapons and in furtherance of their common intention, inflicted injuries