[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sewa Singh vs State Of Punjab on 18 March, 2026
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
CRM-M-73448-2025 -1-
107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-73448-2025
Date of decision :18.03.2026
SEWA SINGH
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Ankur Mittal, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate
Mr. Siddhanth Arora, Advocate and
Mr. Sakal Sikri, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. K.B. Raheja, Advocate
for the complainant.
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (ORAL)
The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 of
BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail in case DDR No.0002 dated
16.09.2023 (Annexure P-2) registered under Sections
307,323,336,148,149 and Sections 25, 54, 57 and 59 of Arms Act at
Police Station Fatehgarh Panjtoor, District Moga in FIR No.0056 dated
15.09.2023 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 452, 323, 506,
427, 336, 148, 149 IPC at Police Station Fatehgarh Panjtoor, District
Moga.
2. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that
the petitioner was found to be innocent. However, he has been
summoned under Section 190 Cr.P.C. In terms of the order dated
1 of 7
24.12.2025, he has been directed to join investigation. He has appeared
before the concerned Court and has been granted the concession of
interim anticipatory bail. He, therefore prays that his interim bail be
confirmed.
3. On the other hand, the learned State counsel admits that the
petitioner was exonerated during the course of investigation and has
been summoned to face trial under Section 190 Cr.P.C.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant contends that the
petitioner has been exonerated only after he had joined a particular
dispensation in the State of Punjab. Therefore, his exoneration is bad and
therefore, the anticipatory bail granted to him is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. On 24.12.2025, the following order was passed:-
"Petitioner, who is accused in DDR No.0002 dated 16.09.2023
registered against him and others (arising out of FIR No.0056
dated 15.09.2023), for commission of offences punishable
under Sections 307,323,336,148,149 IPC and Section
25,54,57,59 of Arms Act registered at P.S Fatehgarh Panjtoor,
District Moga, has filed the instant petition, praying for grant
of pre-arrest bail.
Relevant facts as emerging from the documents on record be
noticed hereinbelow:
In the late evening of 14.09.2023, on receipt of ruqa
from the hospital regarding admission of injured, police
officials arrived at the hospital and sought permission of the
Doctor on duty to record the statement of Gurjeet Kaur, who
had suffered four injuries (all of which have since been
declared as 'Simple in nature). Even though Doctor had
opined her fit, she did not get her statement recorded on the
2 of 7
same evening. Rather, her husband Jarnail Singh filed a
complaint on 15.09.2023 levelling serious allegations
against Gurjeet Kaur, her brother Gurmit Singh and others.
Consequently, a formal case vide FIR No.0056 dated
15.09.2023 was registered against Gurmit Singh, Gurjeet
Kaur and others under Sections 452, 323, 506, 427, 336,
148, 149 IPC.
In his statement, Jarnail Singh alleged that he was
married to Gurjeet Kaur in 2002. Due to temperamental
differences their married life was not smooth. At about 5.15
pm on 14.09.2023, about 15-20 persons arrived at his
residence, including brother of his wife namely, Gurmit
Singh, all of whom were armed with baseball bats and sticks
etc. They forcibly entered his house and unleashed an attack
in which he was mercilessly assaulted and the household
articles were badly damaged. In this incident, Jarnail Singh
further alleged having suffered multiple injuries. Kiranpreet
Kaur who had rushed to his rescue was also assaulted by
accused person. Both the injured were rushed to the
hospital.
At about 2.45 am on 16.09.2023, DDR No.0002 was
registered at the instance of Gurmit Singh (brother of
Gurjeet Kaur) against the present petitioner Sewa Singh,
Mehal Singh, Beant Singh, Kiranpreet Kaur etc. Gurmit
Singh in his complaint alleged that his brother-in-law
Jarnail Singh and family members had been pressuring
Gurjeet Kaur to consent to second marriage of Jarnail
Singh, as the couple had only two daughters. When Gurjeet
Kaur refused, she was assaulted and an attempt was made
to forcibly administer poison to her. She resisted. Her in-
laws were not successful. When he (Gurmit Singh, brother of
Gurjeet Kaur) tried to intervene, gun shots were fired at
him. He suffered serious injuries. It was further alleged by
Gurmit Singh that the present petitioner caught hold of his
sister and along with Kiranpreet Kaur and tried to force her
3 of 7
to consume poison. He also gave 'dang' blows to her which
hit on her left leg.
On the basis of said complaint, aforesaid DDR No.0002 dated
16.09.2023 was registered against the petitioner and others
under Section 307 IPC. Police Authorities carried out
investigation. Based on CCTV footage, IO arrived at a
conclusion that petitioner, Mehal Singh and Beant Singh were
not present at the spot. Resultantly, these three were declared
innocent and were kept in column No.2. On culmination of
investigation in case FIR No.0056, final report under Section
173 Cr.P.C was prepared against Sukhdev Singh and others.
It further emerges from the documents on record that
being aggrieved of this act of the Investigating Officer, vide
which the petitioner, Mehal Singh and Beant Singh were found
innocent, complainant party (Gurmit Singh, Gurjeet Kaur and
others) filed a petition bearing CRM-M55144-2024
requesting for independent investigation. Since the final
report had already been prepared, aforesaid petition was
disposed of with the liberty to the complainant party to pursue
their remedy before the learned trial Court. Another petition
bearing CRM-M-11359-2025 filed by Gurmit Singh and
Gurjeet Kaur, was also disposed of, in terms of order dated
28.02.2025 vide which learned Magistrate was directed to
consider all the reports and objections raised against the
investigation while deciding application under Section 210 of
BNSS.
Invoking the powers u/s 210 of BNSS, petitioner-Sewa
Singh was summoned by the learned Magistrate (vide order
dated 17.04.2025) to face trial for the commission of offence
punishable under Section 307,323,336,148,149 IPC and
Section 25 of the Arms Act along with Jarnail Singh,
Kiranpreet Kaur, Mehal Singh and Beant Singh. The aforesaid
order was assailed by the petitioner and others vide CRM-M-
50403-2025 wherein notice of motion was issued (Annexure
P-14).
4 of 7
Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that
in the factual backdrop of the case as stated hereinabove, it is
clear that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. CCTV
footage collected from the site indicates that the petitioner
was not present at the site. For the said reason, he was kept in
column No.2. Further, the falsity of the case set up by the
complainant party, namely, Gurmit Singh is apparent from the
fact that though Gurjeet Kaur, who had suffered only simple
injuries in the incident was opined 'fit' by the treating Doctor,
however for reasons best known, when the police Authorities
reached at the hospital, she did not lodge any complaint.
Rather, Jarnail Singh was the first to get criminal proceedings
initiated by lodging FIR No.56 dated 15.09.2023 against
Gurmit Singh and Others u/s 452, 323, 306, 336, 427, 148,
149 IPC. Only as a counter blast thereto and with a view to
level scores with Jarnail Singh and his family members, DDR
No.0002 dated 16.09.2023 was lodged by giving an
exaggerated and colored version. Further, no material was
placed on record to prove that gun shots had been fired.
The next leg of submission raised by learned Senior
counsel for petitioner is that even if for the sake of arguments
the story as putforth by the complainant is taken to be true at
its face value (though not admitted), the only role attributed to
the petitioner is that he caught hold of the sister of the
complainant forced her to gulp down poisonous substance
and gave dang blows on her left leg. Learned counsel
contends that in the factual scenario as mentioned above,
nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner, who is,
nonetheless ready and willing to join investigation as and
when called upon to do so.
Notice of motion for 31.01.2026.
Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on
behalf of respondent-State and seeks time to file detailed
status report.
5 of 7
Mr. K.B. Raheja, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of
the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant has
filed detailed reply dated 23.12.2025 opposing the request for
grant of anticipatory bail. It is the submission of learned
counsel that petitioner and other accused are influential
persons and are very close to local MLA. On 15.09.2024, they
had joined Aam Admi Party and had exerted pressure on the
investigating officer, who as a consequence thereof gave a
false report that the accused party did not participate in the
incident. Continuing further, learned counsel contends that
Gurjeet Kaur (sister of complainant Gurmit Singh) had been
married to Jarnail Singh about 20 years ago. The couple is
blessed with 2 daughters but neither Jarnail Singh nor his
family members were happy as they had been wanting a male
child to inherit the property.
It is further the submission of learned counsel that
Jarnail Singh had developed illicit relation with Kiranpreet
Kaur. When this fact came to the notice of Gurjeet Kaur, she
objected to the same. Number of Panchayats were convened
to amicably resolve the dispute, but to no avail. In furtherance
of well thought of plan, the accused party including the
present petitioner forced Gurjeet Kaur to consume poison and
when she resisted, she was assaulted. Jarnail Singh and
Kiranpreet Kaur tried to strangulate her, whereas petitioner
gave 'dang' blows to her on her left leg. The lady was in a
state of shock when she was rushed to the hospital as was her
brother, who had suffered gun shots injuries. Even though the
first aid medical treatment was provided to her and her
brother in the Civil Hospital but seeing his delicate medical
condition, he was referred to Super Speciality Hospital.
Learned counsel also referred to the MLRs appended with the
reply as Annexures R-6 and R-7. Based on the aforesaid
submission, learned counsel contends that the enquiry in
which petitioner was declared innocent is totally one sided,
deserves not to be relied upon. Considering the entire
6 of 7
documents, the learned trial Court rightly summoned
petitioner and others. In the factual scenario, no case for
grant of pre-arrest bail is made out.
Heard.
In view of the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner, taking note of the documents
appended along with petition as also considering that one of
the similarly situated accused Mehal Singh has been granted
the concession of interim anticipatory bail, but without
further adverting to the merits of the case, the present
petitioner who was also summoned by learned Magistrate by
invoking powers u/s 210 BNS, is hereby directed to join
investigation within seven days from today and cooperate in
the same. In the event of the arrest of the petitioner, he shall
be released on interim bail on her furnishing personal/surety
bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating
Officer. He shall also abide by conditions as envisaged under
Section 482(2) BNSS."
7. In deference to the aforementioned order, the petitioner has
appeared before the concerned Court and has been granted the
concession of interim anticipatory bail.
8. In view of the above, the bail granted to the petitioner is
confirmed subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds and surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court.
9. Disposed of.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
18.03.2026
JITESH
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
7 of 7
