##PAGE1##

CRM-M No.303 of 2026 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

202 *****

CRM-M No.303 of 2026 Date of decision : 6.4.2026

Date of uploading : 6.4.2026

Sandeep Singh @ Vicky ………….Petitioner Versus

State of Punjab …….Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present: Mr. Kuldeep Singh Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab

Mr. Ramandeep Singh Gill, Advocate, for the complainant ---

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. On 12.1.2026, the following order was passed:

‘1. For the commission of offence punishable under Sections 109,304(1), 118(1), 126(2), 351(2), 351(3), 190, 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the FIR No.212 dated 10.11.2025 has been lodged in Police Station Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib. In the abovementioned case, the petitioner is apprehending arrest, and therefore, for the benefit of anticipatory bail he has approached this Court by virtue of present

petition under Section 482 of BNSS.

2. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of Kamalpreet Singh who had stated before the police that on 09.11.2025 at about 03:30 PM he received a call from his client Jaspreet Singh, who stated that he was surrounded by Jasmeet Singh, Lali, Sandeep Singh and two other unknown persons, and that they were thrashing him. According to complainant, on receipt of abovementioned information he reached the spot, but on arrival he, too, came under attack. As per complainant, the assailants extorted to teach him a lesson and inflicted injuries on his person. In his abovementioned

ASHWANI KUMAR

2026.04.06 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M No.303 of 2026 -2-

statement it was also disclosed by the complainant that at the time of abovementioned assault, Jasmeet Singh was carrying a steel rod who hit him on his head with an intention to kill, whereas assailant Lali hit him

with the help of a rod.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned information, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation

taken up.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Since advance notice has already been served, Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, appears on behalf of respondent-State,

and waives service.

6. Power of attorney on behalf of the complainant has been filed. The same be taken on record.

7. Heard.

8. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that any of the injuries suffered by the complainant or Jaspreet Singh has not been declared either grievous or dangerous to life, and that in fact the factual matrix of the case itself shows that there is no intention to kill the petitioner. It has been further contended that the injured has already been discharged from the

hospital and that petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

9. Per contra, the learned State Counsel being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that allegations in the present case are of serious nature, as there was an intention to kill the complainant and his client, namely Jasbir Singh. The learned State Counsel has argued that for the purpose of recovery of weapon of offence, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary and that the gravity of offence allegedly committed by the petitioner does not deserve the concession of

anticipatory bail.

10. The record has been perused carefully.

11. A perusal of the record shows that there are several factors which are required to be taken into consideration in the present petition at this stage.

Those factors are:-

i. that no grievous or dangerous to life injury has been inflicted on the person of complainant or his co-victim

Jaspreet Singh;

ii. that recovery of weapon can be facilitated by giving a direction to the petitioner to join the investigation;

ASHWANI KUMAR

2026.04.06 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M No.303 of 2026 -3-

iii. that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents;

iv. that th