IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 9^th April, 2026 Vikram Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Barjinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Aman Kumar, 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 petitioners seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No. 168 dated 03.09.2025 registered under Sections 309(4), 309(2), 310(2), 61(2), 127(2), 304, 115(2), 191(3) and 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) at Police Station City Sangrur, District Sangrur.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement got recorded by the complainant Lovepreet Singh @ Labbu, alleging that on 03.09.2025, the petitioners along with the co-accused had wrongfully confined him, snatched his cell phone and silver neck chain, had stripped him and had forcibly recorded a video making him apologize. He had been assaulted by petitioner No. 2-Aman Kumar and accused Money Singh and sustained injuries. His car was also taken by the petitioners and Money Singh from him.

3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated and are underway. The petitioners moved applications for grant of anticipatory bail which have been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide orders dated 16.10.2025 and 20.10.2025 respectively. Previously also the petitioners had filed petitions which were dismissed by this Court on 29.01.2026.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that after dismissal of their previous petitions there is a change in the circumstances since a compromise has been effected between them and the respondent No.2- complainant who does not have any grudge against them. A petition seeking quashing of FIR by way of compromise has also been filed. It is argued that in view of these changed circumstances, they deserve to be extended benefit of anticipatory bail.

5. Notice of motion.

6. Mr. Aman Kumar, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and while affirming the factum of compromise and also the fact that the compromise Annexure P-2 has been signed by the complainant, has not raised any objection to the allowing of the petition.

7. Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter. It is argued by her that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations, the petitioners do not deserve to be extended benefit of bail.

Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

8. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

9. The petitioners are alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in pursuance thereof, are alleged to have wrongfully confined him, assaulted him and to have robbed him to his belongings. Given the nature of the allegations and the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that pre-trial incarceration of the petitioners is not required at this stage. It is also well settled proposition of law that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction. As such, the petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be admitted on bail. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating/Arresting Officer to join investigation within 10 days from today and subsequent also as and when required. In the event of their arrest, the Investigating/Arresting Officer shall release the petitioners on interim bail on furnishing personal/surety bonds to his/her satisfaction. The petitioners shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNS.

10. It is further clarified that the observations made above are only fo