Jaswant Singh vs State Of Punjab

1
CRM CRM-M-57436 CRM CRM 57436 57436-2026 AND 57436 2026 AND 2026 AND CRM 2026 AND CRM CRM-M-59293 CRM 59293 59293-2026 59293 2026 2026 2026


104+202 104+202 104+202 104+202
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-57436 CRM 57436-2026 2026
1.1.1.1. CRM CRM 57436 57436 2026 2026

Jaswant Singh
....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
2.2.2.2. CRM CRM-M-59293 CRM CRM 59293 59293-2026 59293 2026 2026 2026

Joga Singh
....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
Date of Decision: Date of Decision: November 13 Date of Decision: Date of Decision: November 13 November 13, 2026 November 13 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026
Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: November 13 Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: November 13 November 13, 2026 November 13 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present: Present:- Present: Present: Mr. Rajinder Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner
(in CRM-M-57436-2026).

Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
(in CRM-M-59293-2026).

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.


SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL)

By this common order, the aforesaid two petitions filed under
Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner(s), namely, Jaswant Singh and Joga Singh, in case bearing FIR No.54
dated 07.06.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109,
326(g), 324(4), 324(5), 221, 132, 333, 191(3), 190, 351(2) and 351(3) of the
BNS, 2023, at Police Station Bhindi Saida, District Amritsar.







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.13 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

2
CRM CRM-M-57436 CRM CRM 57436 57436-2026 AND 57436 2026 AND 2026 AND CRM 2026 AND CRM CRM-M-59293 CRM 59293 59293-2026 59293 2026 2026 2026

2. For the sake of ease, relevant factual milieu is drawn from the
order dated 01.10.2025 passed by the concerned learned Sessions Judge
(whereby anticipatory bail plea of the petitioner(s) was rejected), reads thus:
“ 6. As per prosecution story, on 6.6.2025 at about 9.15 p.m SI/SHO of
Police Station Bhindi Saida received information that in village Toor,
Ravail Singh, Buta Singh, Jagroop Singh, Manjit Singh, Pala Singh, Bawi,
Mukha Singh, Paramjit Singh, Sooter, Manga Singh, Deba Singh, Baljit
Singh, Jita Singh alongwith 70/80 more persons armed with Datar,
Kirpans, Dangs and deadly weapons as party of one side and party of other
side consisting of Gursewak Singh, Baldev Singh, Resham Singh, Roshan
Singh alias Rosha, Jaswinder Singh, Sarwan Singh, Preet Singh, Raj Kaur,
Gurmej Singh alias Geja, Major Singh, Phuman Singh, Jinder Singh,
Gurnam Singh, Paramjit Singh alias Pinka, Ladha Singh, Jhardev Singh,
Mangal Singh, Gurpinder Singh, Sahba Singh, , Kuldip Singh, Jassa
Singh, Bau Singh, Major Singh, Tara Singh, Gurpinder Singh, Gurmej
Singh, Kashmir Singh, Gurmukh Singh, Ghula Singh, Shinda Singh,
Jaswant Singh (applicant/accused no.1), Jinder Singh, Maninder Singh,
Gurpreet Singh, Buta Singh, Joga Singh (applicant/accused no.2), Manjit
Singh, Jagroop Singh alias Ganna, Sukhwinder Singh, Kikkar Singh,
Sarabnjit Singh alolngwith 120/130 unknown persons armed with deadly
weapons like datar, kirpans, dangs etc, were pelting stones against the
houses of each other and were also setting the houses of each other on fire.
On receiving the information, the police party reached at the place of
occurrence, where the police party found that the both the parties
consisting of aforesaid persons were pelting stones against each other
while standing some on the roof of houses and rest were gathered on the
ground and were also raising lalkaras to kill each other and had set on fire
some of the houses. The police party headed by SI/SHO warned both the
parties to stop, but instead of making peace and harmony, they got enraged
and started pelting stores against police party with an intention to kill
them. In the stone pelting, Ct.Narinder Singh got injured. The police party
in order to safe themselves, made 7 gun fire in the air. But the situation
could not be controlled and then wireless message was sent to senior
officers for sending more police personnel. Fire brigage was informed to
reach at the spot for controlling the houses set on fire. Both the parties set
the houses of each other on fire and forcibly tressed passed into the houses
and caused damage to the house hold articles of each other. The accused
persons also caused obstructions in the discharge of official duties by the
police party and attacked with an intention to kill them. On the basis of
these allegations, the present FIR was registered against the
applicants/accused.
”

3. Learned counsels for the petitioner(s) have submitted that a bare
perusal of the FIR reveals that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are
wholly concocted, improbable and devoid of merit. Learned counsels have
argued that the petitioner(s) have been falsely implicated in the FIR in question.







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.13 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

3
CRM CRM-M-57436 CRM CRM 57436 57436-2026 AND 57436 2026 AND 2026 AND CRM 2026 AND CRM CRM-M-59293 CRM 59293 59293-2026 59293 2026 2026 2026

It has been contended that the allegations against the petitioner(s) are
predominantly collective and omnibus in nature, with no specific or distinct
overt act attributed to them. Learned counsels have further contended that the
petitioners were neither armed with any deadly weapon nor alleged to have
inflicted any specific injury, assaulted any police official, set any identified
house on fire, forcibly trespassed into any premises or caused any specific
damage. Rather, the petitioner(s) are stated to have been empty-handed at
alleged place of occurrence.
3.1. Learned counsels the petitioner(s) have also jointly submitted that
nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner(s). Learned counsels have further
iterated that the petitioner(s) are ready and willing to join investigation. It has
been urged that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner(s)
behind the bars. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, grant of the
instant petition is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has filed short reply dated 27.10.2026 (in
CRM-M-57436-2026), in the Court today, which is taken on record. Role of the
petitioner, namely, Jaswant Singh, as mentioned in the said reply, reads thus:
Role of the petitioner Role of the petitioner Role of the petitioner Role of the petitioner
“
6. That as per the prosecution version, there was fight between Ravail
Singh, Buta Singh, Jagroop Singh, Manjit Singh son of Mukhtar
Singh, Pala Singh, Bawi, Mukha Singh, Paramjit Singh, Sooter,
Manga Singh, Deba Singh, Balit Singh, Jita Singh alongwith 70/80
other persons armed with Datars, Kirpans, Dangs and deadly
weapons as party of one side and party of other side consisting of
Gursewak Singh, Baldev Singh, Resham Singh, Roshan Singh
alias Rosha, Jaswinder Singh, Sarwan Singh, Preet Singh, Raj
Kaur, Gurmej Singh alias Geja, Major Singh, Phuman Singh,
Jinder Singh, Gurnam Singh, Paramjit Singh alias Pinka, Ladha
Singh, Jhardev Singh, Mangal Singh, Gurpinder Singh, Sahba
Singh, Kuldip Singh, Jassa Singh, Bau Singh, Major Singh, Tara
Singh, Gurpinder Singh, Gurmej Singh, Kashmir Singh, Gurmukh
Singh, Gula Singh, Shinda Singh, Jaswant Singh (petitioner),
Jinder Singh, Maninder Singh, Gurpreet Singh, Buta Singh, Joga







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.13 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

4
CRM CRM-M-57436 CRM CRM 57436 57436-2026 AND 57436 2026 AND 2026 AND CRM 2026 AND CRM CRM-M-59293 CRM 59293 59293-2026 59293 2026 2026 2026

Singh, Manjit Singh, Jagroop Singh alias Ganna, Sukhwinder
Singh, Kikkar Singh, Sarabjit Singh alongwith 120/130 unknown
persons armed with deadly weapons like datar, kirpans, dangs etc,
were pelting stones on each other houses while standing on the
roof of houses and some were gathered on the ground and were
also raising lalkaras to kill each other and had set on fire some of
the houses and when he along with the police party tried to stop the
aforesaid persons, the aforesaid persons started pelting stones on
police party with an intention to kill them and Ct. Narinder Singh
received injuries and when police party had to fire in air in order to
maintain law and order and both the parties set the houses of each
other on fire and forcibly tress-passed into the houses and caused
damage to the house hold articles of each other and caused
”
obstructions in the discharge of official duties.

4.1. Learned State counsel has filed short reply dated 27.10.2026 (in
CRM-M-59293-2026), which is already on record. Role of the petitioner,
namely, Joga Singh, as mentioned in the said reply, reads thus:
Role of the petitioner Role of the petitioner Role of the petitioner Role of the petitioner
“
6. That as per the prosecution version, there was fight between Ravail
Singh, Buta Singh, Jagroop Singh, Manjit Singh son of Mukhtar
Singh, Pala Singh, Bawi, Mukha Singh, Paramjit Singh, Sooter,
Manga Singh, Deba Singh, Balit Singh, Jita Singh alongwith 70/80
other persons armed with Datars, Kirpans, Dangs and deadly
weapons as party of one side and party of other side consisting of
Gursewak Singh, Baldev Singh, Resham Singh, Roshan Singh
alias Rosha, Jaswinder Singh, Sarwan Singh, Preet Singh, Raj
Kaur, Gurmej Singh alias Geja, Major Singh, Phuman Singh,
Jinder Singh, Gurnam Singh, Paramjit Singh alias Pinka, Ladha
Singh, Jhardev Singh, Mangal Singh, Gurpinder Singh, Sahba
Singh, Kuldip Singh, Jassa Singh, Bau Singh, Major Singh, Tara
Singh, Gurpinder Singh, Gurmej Singh, Kashmir Singh, Gurmukh
Singh, Gula Singh, Shinda Singh, Jaswant Singh, Jinder Singh,
Maninder Singh, Gurpreet Singh, Buta Singh, Joga Singh
(petitioner), Manjit Singh, Jagroop Singh alias Ganna, Sukhwinder
Singh, Kikkar Singh, Sarabjit Singh alongwith 120/130 unknown
persons armed with deadly weapons like datar, kirpans, dangs etc,
were pelting stones on each other houses while standing on the
roof of houses and some were gathered on the ground and were
also raising lalkaras to kill each other and had set on fire some of
the houses and when he along with the police party tried to stop the
aforesaid persons, the aforesaid persons started pelting stones on
police party with an intention to kill them and Ct. Narinder Singh
received injuries and when police party had to fire in air in order to
maintain law and order and both the parties set the houses of each
other on fire and forcibly tress-passed into the houses and caused
damage to the house hold articles of each other and caused
”
obstructions in the discharge of official duties.








MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.13 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

5
CRM CRM-M-57436 CRM CRM 57436 57436-2026 AND 57436 2026 AND 2026 AND CRM 2026 AND CRM CRM-M-59293 CRM 59293 59293-2026 59293 2026 2026 2026

Raising submissions in tandem with the aforesaid reply(s), learned
State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners by
arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner(s) are serious in nature. It
has been further argued that investigation, in the present case, is still underway
and the petitioner(s) are yet to be arrested. Given the nature of allegations,
custodial interrogation of the petitioner(s) is indispensable. It has been
contended that, in case, the petitioner(s) are accorded the concession of
anticipatory bail, there is all likelihood that they may abscond from the process
of justice as also influence/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses. Thus, the
present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have
gone through the available record of the case.
6. As per the prosecution case, serious allegations have been levelled
against the petitioner(s). Perusal of the prosecution case, the material available
on record, the reply(s) filed by the State, as also the order whereby the
anticipatory bail plea of the petitioners was declined by the concerned Court
below, prima facie , reveals that two groups comprising several named and
several unidentified persons, respectively, armed with datars, kirpans, dangs
and other deadly weapons, were involved in a violent clash. The members of
both groups allegedly pelted stones at each other's houses, raised lalkaras , set
houses on fire, forcibly trespassed into each other’s premises and damaged
household articles. It is further alleged that when the police party intervened to
control the situation, the accused persons pelted stones at the police party with
an intention to kill, resulting in injuries to Constable Narinder Singh and
obstructing the police officials in discharge of their official duties. The police







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.13 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

6
CRM CRM-M-57436 CRM CRM 57436 57436-2026 AND 57436 2026 AND 2026 AND CRM 2026 AND CRM CRM-M-59293 CRM 59293 59293-2026 59293 2026 2026 2026

party was also compelled to fire in the air to maintain law and order. Perusal of
the prosecution version further, prima facie , reveals that the petitioners actively
participated in the said occurrence, thereby disturbing peace and tranquility. It
is further the case of the prosecution that recoveries are yet to be effected and
custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary for proper investigation,
unearthing the complete sequence of events and ascertaining the manner in
which the alleged occurrence was planned and executed. Keeping in view the
factual milieu of the case in hand; especially seriousness & nature of offence;
this Court, prima facie , finds that the petitioners do not deserve the
extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail.
6.1. The other pleas raised by the petitioners, including those of false
implication etc., are matters to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence during
the course of trial. Such disputed questions of fact(s) cannot be conclusively
determined at the stage of consideration of the petitioners’ prayer for
anticipatory bail.
6.2. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from
which it can be deciphered that the petitioners have been falsely implicated into
the present FIR.
7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering plea for grant
of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding
individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon
with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused;
the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wider impact of
such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the
society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.13 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

7
CRM CRM-M-57436 CRM CRM 57436 57436-2026 AND 57436 2026 AND 2026 AND CRM 2026 AND CRM CRM-M-59293 CRM 59293 59293-2026 59293 2026 2026 2026

transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that a prima
facie case is not made out against the petitioners. The material which has come
on record and the preliminary investigation appear to establish reasonable basis
for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the
petitioners, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation.
A profitable reference in this regard is being made to the dicta passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 :
State State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 :
1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 , the Supreme Court held as under, relevant whereof reads
as under:
“ 6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is
qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-
ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like
this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in
disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been
concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person
knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the
time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce
to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the
danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be
countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all
criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would
conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task
of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders. ”

8. The material which has come on record, the preliminary
investigation and nature of the offence & seriousness of the allegations, appear
to establish a reasonable basis for accusation of the petitioners. Accordingly,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners do not deserve the
concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand.
Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary for an effective
investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and
is hereby dismissed dismissed dismissed. dismissed







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.13 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

8
CRM CRM-M-57436 CRM CRM 57436 57436-2026 AND 57436 2026 AND 2026 AND CRM 2026 AND CRM CRM-M-59293 CRM 59293 59293-2026 59293 2026 2026 2026

9. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of
opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.








(SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL) SUMEET GOEL
JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE
November 13 November 13, 2026 November 13 November 13 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026
mahavir

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.13 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment