Gurpreet Singhy vs State Of Punjab And Others

CRM-M-55139-2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

212

CRM-M-55139-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision : 03.11.2026
Gurpreet Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Ramnik Singh and Mr. Vipul Malhotra, Advocates
for the petitioner.
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) , is for grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 90 dated
26.04.2026, registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 191(2), 190 and 351(2)
of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) (Section 118(2) of BNS
added later on) at Police Station Badali Ala Singh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the
statement of complainant Shailesh Kumar, who was working as a Manager at
May Fair Farms, Village Niyamu Majra, alleging therein that on 25.04.2026,
at about 11:00 PM, he heard the sound of someone breaking the door outside
his house. He found the petitioner along with one of his relatives standing
there and damaging the wall of his house. He ran and knocked at the door of
his neighbour Bhupinder Singh. Meanwhile, about 8-10 persons armed with
kirpans and rods came from the side of the petitioner and started beating him
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-55139-2026 (O&M) 2
in the street. When he turned towards his house, the petitioner and his
relative, described as a Mistri, came in front of him. The petitioner struck a
rod blow at him and he raised his left arm to protect himself, whereupon the
rod struck near his left elbow. The Mistri also gave beatings to him. He
somehow entered into his house and bolted the door from inside. Thereafter,
the aforesaid persons threw stones and bricks inside his house. Co-accused
Balwinder Singh, father of the petitioner, whose house adjoins the house of
the complainant, also threw stones and bricks from his roof into the courtyard
of the complainant’s house. During this, Chhote Lal Maurya, father of the
complainant, sustained an injury on his head. On an alarm being raised, the
petitioner and his companions fled from the spot along with their weapons,
while threatening to kill the complainant and his father. Sunil Kumar, brother
of the complainant, took both the injured to Civil Hospital, Khera, from
where they were referred to GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh. The motive was
stated to be that the petitioner had constructed the threshold of his house in
the street and the complainant and his father had asked him to remove two
steps in order to reduce the obstruction. As per the medico-legal reports, the
complainant had suffered five injuries and his father had suffered two
injuries. Injury No. 3 on the person of the complainant was subsequently
declared to be grievous in nature and Section 118(2) of BNS was added on
22.06.2026. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for
grant of anticipatory bail, which has been dismissed by the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide order dated 12.08.2026
(Annexure P-3).
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-55139-2026 (O&M) 3
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been
falsely implicated in this case on account of personal rivalry and a long-
standing neighbourhood dispute. The genesis of the case is a civil dispute
relating to the construction of a doorway opening towards the street, which
has been given a criminal colour. The allegations are omnibus and vague and
no specific overt act has been attributed to him. No independent witness has
supported the prosecution version, which rests on the interested version of the
complainant party. In fact, the complainant and his associates had trespassed
into the residential premises of the petitioner and had damaged his property.
This incident has been captured in a video recording (Annexure P-2). The
petitioner had submitted written complaints to the police in this regard but no
action was taken on the same. During a telephonic conversation held with
counsel for the petitioner on 01.05.2026, the Investigating Officer had
suggested that the accused should sit together with the complainant side so
that the matter could be settled. This indicates an implied demand for illegal
gratification and shows that the investigation is tainted, due to which it
deserves to be entrusted to an independent officer. The injuries are not of
such gravity as to require his custodial interrogation. All the offences are
punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, and thus the
safeguards under Section 35 of BNSS are attracted. The petitioner is a
permanent resident of District Fatehgarh Sahib, has clean antecedents and has
undertaken to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not
required and no recovery is to be effected from him. Therefore, it is urged
that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be
granted concession of anticipatory bail.
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-55139-2026 (O&M) 4
4. Short reply by way of affidavit of Raj Kumar, PPS, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh
Sahib, has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has
argued that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner,
who is stated to have struck a rod blow at the complainant. The complainant
suffered five injuries and his father suffered two injuries. Injury No. 3 of the
complainant, an incised wound over his left forearm, was declared grievous
and Section 118(2) of BNS was added. Three brickbats were recovered from
the spot on 26.04.2026 and co-accused Balwinder Singh was arrested on
01.05.2026. Challan against him was presented on 29.07.2026 and charge
was framed on 24.08.2026. However, the arrest of the petitioner is still
pending and investigation qua him and the unidentified assailants is going on.
His custodial interrogation is required to ascertain the identity and
whereabouts of his relative described as Mistri and the other unidentified
persons. It is also required to ascertain the whereabouts of the rod used by
him and the other weapons, and the individual participation of the assailants
in causing the injuries. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be
dismissed.
5. This Court has heard the rival submissions.
6. The petitioner is alleged to have come to the house of the
complainant at night along with his relative, and about 8-10 persons armed
with kirpans and rods are alleged to have joined them. A specific role of
striking a rod blow at the complainant has been attributed to him. Therefore,
the plea that the allegations are omnibus and no overt act has been attributed
to him cannot be accepted. As per the medico-legal reports (Annexures R-1
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-55139-2026 (O&M) 5
and R-2), the complainant and his father suffered as many as seven injuries in
all. Injury No. 3 of the complainant has been declared grievous in nature, due
to which the plea regarding the injuries being minor is also without merit. No
doubt, the complainant has stated that the rod struck him near his left elbow,
whereas Injury No. 3 has been recorded as an incised wound over his left
forearm caused by a sharp weapon. However, the FIR itself states that the
assailants were carrying kirpans and rods, and Section 190 of BNS has also
been invoked. Which of the assailants caused which injury is a matter of
investigation and the same is rather one of the reasons put forth by the
respondent-State for seeking his custodial interrogation.
7. The plea that all the offences are punishable with imprisonment
of less than seven years is not correct. The petition is silent about Section
118(2) of BNS. The said offence is punishable with imprisonment for life or
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years. As such, the
plea based on Section 35 of BNSS does not help the petitioner.
8. The complainant and his father are the injured persons and their
version is prima facie supported by the medico-legal reports. Credibility of
their version on the ground of hostility between the parties will be examined
at the appropriate stage. The pen drive (Annexure P-2) relied upon by him
and his version of the incident are matters which can be looked into during
investigation and trial. The same are not sufficient at this stage to discard the
prosecution version.
9. As regards the allegations against the Investigating Officer, the
conversation as described by the petitioner himself is about the parties sitting
together and settling the matter. No specific demand of any money is stated to
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-55139-2026 (O&M) 6
have been made. No transcript of the conversation has been placed on record.
It is not even pleaded that any complaint in this regard was made to any
senior police officer. On such material, no inference of demand of illegal
gratification or of bias can be drawn. An accused cannot choose the officer
who is to investigate a case against him, and a prayer for change of the
Investigating Officer does not fall within the scope of a petition under Section
482 of BNSS. Therefore, this prayer is also declined.
10. The relative of the petitioner and the other assailants are yet to
be identified and the rod and the other weapons are yet to be recovered. The
allegations prima facie make out a case for commission of alleged offences.
His custodial interrogation is required for conducting thorough and proper
investigation in the matter. In case his custodial interrogation is denied to the
investigating agency, the same will leave many glaring loopholes and gaps
adversely affecting the investigation. The presentation of challan against co-
accused Balwinder Singh does not help the petitioner, as investigation qua
the petitioner is still pending and the role attributed to the co-accused is
different. His clean antecedents, permanent residence and undertaking to join
the investigation are not sufficient in view of the nature of the allegations.
There is no dispute with the general principles on personal liberty and arrest
referred to by learned counsel, but the same do not advance his case on these
facts. The powers under Section 482 of BNSS are extraordinary and the same
are to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. However, in the
present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the
powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. As such, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-55139-2026 (O&M) 7
allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Interim protection granted to
the petitioner vide order dated 25.09.2026 stands vacated.
11. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only
for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.


03.11.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari
JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document