SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 77356

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUNNY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB – Respondent
CRM-M_23087_2026



##PAGE1##

CRM-M-23087-2026 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

(204) CRM-M-23087-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision : 15.05.2026

SUNNY ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present: Mr. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab

***

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section

482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking

grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.383 dated 18.12.2022

registered under Sections 336, 452, 148, 149, 427 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27

of the Arms Act at Police Station Civil Lines, Batala, District Gurdaspur.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement

got recorded by the complainant Kashmir Kaur alleging that on the evening of

17.12.2022, she came out of her house to buy milk and as soon as she opened

main gate of her house, accused Rashpal Singh @ Ghuddu, Sonu accompanied

by some unknown persons were found creating ruckus on the street. On seeing

her, the accused Rashpal Singh @ Ghuddu made an exhortation to catch-hold of

her. Then all of them entered inside her house, after breaking open the main

AMIT SHARMA

2026.05.15 13:04

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/judgment.

##PAGE2##

CRM-M-23087-2026 (O&M) 2

gate. They were armed with weapons and one of them fired in the air. They

also damaged the household articles kept in her house. On clamour being

raised, they fled from the spot. After registration of FIR, investigation

proceedings were initiated. During investigation, the petitioner was nominated

as an accused. Apprehending his arrest, he moved an application for grant of

anticipatory bail which was dismissed by the Court of Learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur vide order dated 01.09.2025.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been

falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the FIR. His implication is

on the basis of alleged disclosure statement of co-accused Sarabjit Singh which

cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. Moreover, his name

was taken after a delay of more than two and half years after the occurrence. No

specific overt act has been attributed to him. He is ready to join investigation.

His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from

him. The co-accused Harbhajan Singh @ Sonu, Rashpal Singh @ Ghuddu,

Tralochan Singh @ Gori and Prabhjot @ Prabhjeet Kaur have already been

extended benefit of bail. It is, thus, argued that the petition deserves to be

allowed.

4. Status report has been filed. Learned State counsel has argued that

the presence of the petitioner at the spot was established on the basis of

disclosure statement of the co-accused. For conducting proper and thorough

investigation in the matter, his custodial interrogation is must. It is, therefore,

stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

AMIT SHARMA

2026.05.15 13:04

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/judgment.

##PAGE3##

CRM-M-23087-2026 (O&M) 3

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties at considerable length.

6. The petitioner alongwith the co-accused is alleged to have formed

membership of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object

thereof is further alleged to have entered inside the house of the complainant and

damaged her household articles. He was not named in the FIR. No specific act

has been attributed to him. Given the nature of the allegations as levelled

against the petitioner and the above discussed facts, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the pre-trial incarceration of the petitioner is not

required. Even otherwise, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-

conviction sentencing. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is

ordered to be admitted to bail subject to the condition that the petitioner shall

surrender bef

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top