[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdhir Singh Mann vs State Of Punjab on 27 April, 2026
CRM-M-20025-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-20025-2026
Gurdhir Singh Mann
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
Sr. No. Particulars Details
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 23.04.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 27.04.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 27.04.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full
4 Full
judgment is pronounced
The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not
5
reasons thereof applicable
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Tanvir Singh Grewal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Arshpreet Singh Khadial, Advocate for the complainant.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J :-
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the
petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing GDR No. 33 dated
01.02.2026 registered under Sections 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(for short 'BNS') and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 at PS Phul, District Bathinda,
arising out of FIR No. 16 dated 01.02.2026 registered under Sections 109 and
3(5) of BNS (Section 27 of Arms Act added later on) at Police Station Phul,
District Bathinda, Punjab as a cross case.
2. Adumbrated facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this
petition are that the aforementioned FIR No. 16 was registered on the basis of
statement recorded by the complainant-Gurdhir Singh, i.e. present petitioner,
on 01.02.2026, alleging that in the morning of the same day, he was going to
deliver milk and when he had crossed about 200 yards of area from his house,
he was intercepted by Sukhdeep Singh and Jagtar Singh who came riding on
a bike and hit the vehicle of the petitioner with the same. Sukhdeep Singh then
picked up a kirpan from his motor bike and struck a blow with the same on
the neck of the petitioner with intent to kill him, whereas Jagtar Singh made
exhortations. The petitioner/complainant managed to push them away and
entered into the house of Ranjit Singh while raising clamour and then the
assailants fled away.
3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were
initiated. On the same day, at about 9:26 PM, the GDR No. 33 was entered on
the basis of the statement recorded by Labh Singh son of Makhan Singh,
brother of Sukhdeep Singh accused in the FIR, alleging therein that on
16.01.2026, some quarrel had taken place between Sukhdeep Singh and the
petitioner and the latter had sustained injuries. A compromise was got effected
subsequently. He alleged that in the morning of 01.02.2026, while Sukhdeep
Singh was going towards his house on a motor bike, the petitioner had fired a
shot with his licenced revolver upon him with intent to kill him, thereby
injuring the right side of his abdomen. The GDR was registered by way of a
cross case. Investigation proceedings have been initiated in the FIR as well as
in the GDR and are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved
an application for grant of pre-arrest bail before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Bathinda which was dismissed vide order dated 27.02.2026.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been
falsely implicated in the GDR which has been registered as a counter blast to
the FIR No. 16 already got registered by him. In fact, it was he who was
assaulted by Sukhdeep Singh on the fateful day by striking blows with a sword.
It was only in his self defence that he was compelled to fire a shot upon the
person of Sukhdeep Singh otherwise, he himself would have been killed. He
was not at all the aggressor in this case. He is ready to join the investigation.
His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from
him. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for
the complainant and while relying upon the status report has vehemently
argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. He had fired
shot with his licenced revolver upon the person of Sukhdeep Singh with intent
to kill him. For the purpose of recovery of the firearm as well as for conducting
proper and thorough investigation in the matter, his custodial interrogation is
required. There is no exceptional or sparing circumstance to extend benefit of
bail to the petitioner. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve
to be allowed.
6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties at considerable length.
7. It is a case of version and cross-version. The petitioner has placed
on record copy of his medico legal report showing that he had sustained an
incised wound measuring 12.6 cm on his neck and this injury has been opined
to be serious in nature. However, admittedly he had also fired a shot with his
licensed revolver on the person of Sukhdeep Singh who had sustained firearm
injuries in the form of entry and exit wound which are obviously dangerous
to life. It is only after thorough assessment of the evidence to be produced on
record and on conducting proper investigation that any conclusion can be
drawn as to who was the aggressor in this case. However, prima facie, the
petitioner appears to have exceeded the right of private defence. Given the
nature of the allegations and the part attributed to the petitioner, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is
required for conducting thorough and proper investigation in the matter. In
case his custodial interrogation is denied to the Investigating Agency, that will
leave many glaring loopholes and gaps thereby adversely affecting the
investigation. Moreso the powers under Section 482 of BNSS are to be
exercised in extraordinary and sparing circumstances. 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 allowed.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
9. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application,
if any, is rendered infructuous.
[MANISHA BATRA]
JUDGE
27th April, 2026
Parveen Sharma
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No
2. Whether reportable : Yes / No
