Jony Singh Alias Joni Kumar vs State Of Punjab

CRM-M-50686-2026 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
( 107 )
CRM-M-50686-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 08.09.2026
JONY SINGH ALIAS JONI KUMAR
… Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
... Respondent
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
1. The present is the first petition under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438
of the Code of Criminal Procedure), seeking the concession of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 0123 dated 07.12.2025 (Annexure P-1),
registered under Sections 109, 117(2), 115(2), 333, 331(6), 331(7), 191(3),
351(2) and 351(3) of the BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 307, 325,
323, 452, 458, 459, 148 and 506 of the IPC) at Police Station Nandgarh,
Bathinda, District Bathinda, Punjab.
2. The FIR was registered on the complaint of Mander Singh,
alleging that on 07.12.2024 at about 8.00 p.m., while he was present in his
house with his family, the accused forcibly entered the premises. The
petitioner was allegedly armed with a stick, while the co-accused carried
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-50686-2026 (O&M) -:2:-
gandasa, small sword and sticks. Navi Singh and Babu Singh allegedly
inflicted sword blows on the complainant’s head with an alleged intention
to cause his death. The accused thereafter fled upon the arrival of persons
at the spot and extended threats to the complainant. The complainant was
admitted to the hospital and, as per the medical record subsequently
received, injuries Nos.1 to 3 were opined to be grievous in nature. The
alleged occurrence arose from the marriage of the sister of accused Jony
with the complainant’s son, against the wishes of her brother. The FIR was
registered pursuant to directions issued by the Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case and that no specific overt
act or injury has been attributed to him. It is submitted that the petitioner is
alleged only to have raised a lalkara and was not armed with any deadly
weapon nor alleged to have caused any injury to the complainant. The
grievous injuries forming the basis of the prosecution case are attributed to
the co-accused. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has
deep roots in society, his custodial interrogation is neither warranted nor
likely to advance the investigation, and his arrest would serve no
meaningful investigative purpose. It is accordingly argued that the
petitioner deserves the concession of anticipatory bail, subject to such
conditions as may be deemed appropriate by this Court, and the present
petition may kindly be allowed.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Upon advance notice, Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, accepts
notice on behalf of the State of Punjab and vehemently opposes the present
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-50686-2026 (O&M) -:3:-
petition. It is submitted that the allegations forming the substratum of the
FIR are serious in nature and that the petitioner cannot claim the
discretionary relief of anticipatory bail merely on the assertion that no
specific injury has been attributed to him. Learned State counsel contends
that the role ascribed to the petitioner, including his alleged participation
in the occurrence and raising of lalkara , has to be appreciated in the
backdrop of the allegations against the entire accused party. It is further
submitted that the impugned order has been passed after due consideration
of the material available on record and suffers from neither any illegality
nor any material infirmity warranting interference by this Court. It is,
accordingly, prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
6. Having considered the rival submissions and the material
available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner
does not merit the concession of anticipatory bail at this stage. The
medical record discloses that the complainant sustained serious head
injuries, including an extra-axial hematoma in the left
frontoparietotemporal region measuring 12 mm in width, haemorrhagic
contusions in the left frontal and temporal lobes, a comminuted displaced
fracture of the right frontal sinus and bilateral frontal bones, besides a
midline shift of 4 mm. The injuries have been opined to be grievous and
life-threatening.
6.1. The prosecution case further attributes a specific role to the
petitioner, alleging that he accompanied the co-accused to the
complainant's residence while armed with an iron chain ( garari ) and
raised a lalkara , exhorting the co-accused to inflict injuries. The alleged
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-50686-2026 (O&M) -:4:-
occurrence is stated to have its genesis in the marriage of the petitioner's
sister with the complainant's son, which was allegedly solemnized against
the petitioner's wishes. Thus, the motive attributed to the occurrence,
coupled with the nature and severity of the injuries sustained by the
complainant and the alleged participation of the petitioner in the
occurrence, constitutes material circumstances militating against grant of
the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail.
6.2. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, particularly the
seriousness of the injuries, the nature of the allegations and the role
attributed to the petitioner, this Court is not persuaded to extend the
extraordinary protection of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is
dismissed .
7. In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all
pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to
the present proceedings shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No
separate or further orders are called for in respect of such applications, the
same having been rendered infructuous in consequence of the present
adjudication.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
08.09.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document