IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sukhdeep Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent Date of decision: 12.02.2026 Date of Uploading : 12.02.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Kesar Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Sections 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘BNSS’) in FIR No.113 dated 14.07.2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 106 of the BNS, 2023 and later on added Section 105 of the BNS, 2023 at Police Station Sadar, Amritsar.

2. As per the prosecution case, the FIR was lodged on the basis of statement made by the complainant namely Urmila wherein she alleged that on 14.07.2025 at about 1:00 AM, her husband namely Sanjeev Kumar, was walking in Vijay Nagar, Street No. 6, Paris Town, near Pappy Gudiya Wala, when a white Verna car bearing registration No. UP-16-AN-3188 came at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner ran over him. It has been further alleged that the vehicle had caused grievous injuries to her husband particularly to the right arm and other parts of the body resulting in his death on the spot. The complainant has further alleged that the driver of the offending vehicle allegedly fled from the place of occurrence. On the basis of these allegations, the FIR in question was got registered initially under Section 106 BNS against an unknown person. During the course of investigation, the present petitioner came to be associated with the said vehicle and was granted bail at the police station in respect of the offence under Section 106 BNS. Subsequently, Section 105 BNS was added, treating the act as culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is not named in FIR and the same was initially registered against an unknown person. According to learned counsel, the implication of the petitioner is solely on account of subsequent investigation which is not supported by any direct or cogent evidence. Furthermore, there is no eye-witness to the alleged occurrence and no ‘Test Identification Parade’ has been conducted to establish that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the incident. Learned counsel has contended that the petitioner was earlier granted the concession of bail in respect of the offence under Section 106 BNS and has scrupulously complied with all the conditions imposed upon him and has never misused the concession of bail. It has been further argued that mere addition of a graver offence, in the absence of any new incriminating material and without any allegation of misuse of liberty, cannot be a ground to curtail the personal liberty of the petitioner. Furthermore, the essential ingredient of mens rea required for constituting an offence under Section 105 BNS is completely absent in the instant case. Learned counsel has further submitted that assuming arguendo, the prosecution version is taken to be correct, at best, the occurrence may amount to an unfortunate accident falling under Section 106 of BNS and does not disclose culpable homicide. Learned counsel has emphasized that the entire case of the prosecution rests upon electronic evidence which is already in the custody of the investigating agency. It is further contended that nothing remains to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner, and hence his custodial interrogation is neither warranted nor justified. Moreover, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, the grant of the