[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunny Kumar @ Sunny Saga vs State Of Punjab on 19 March, 2026
CRM-M-9719-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
158
CRM-M-9719-2026
Decided on : 19.03.2026
SUNNY KUMAR @ SUNNY SAGA
......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Shakti Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. S.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for the complainant.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS,
2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First
Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-
Name of FIR Date Section(s) Police District
Petitioner(s) No. Station
Sunny Kumar 0232 25.10.2025 109, Sadar Kapurthala
@ Sunny Saga, 115(2), Kapurthala
aged about 34 191(3),
years 190 of
BNS and
section 25
of Arms
Act
2. Counsel for the petitioner argues that, for the alleged
commission of offences forming part of the same sequence of events, two
separate FIRs have been registered--one at Police Station Sadar
Kapurthala and another at Police Station City Kapurthala--and both FIRs
contain divergent versions.
In FIR No.232 dated 25.10.2025 (impugned herein),
registered at Police Station Sadar Kapurthala, complainant alleged that on
24.10.2025, at about 10:00-11:00 A.M., when he came out of his house,
accused persons, namely Ajay Gola, Vijay, Sunny Kumar alias Sunny
Saga (present petitioner), Sanam Thapar @ Ghoda, Deepu @ DJ Wala,
Pawan Baanwala, and Sonu of Sultanpur Lodhi, attacked him. It is
specifically alleged that petitioner-Sunny Kumar alias Sunny Saga, was
armed with a pistol and a gunshot fired by him caused injury to the
complainant-Rinku, who thereafter underwent medico-legal examination.
In another FIR No.0384 dated 26.12.2025, registered at
Police Station City Kapurthala, it is alleged that, in respect of the same
incident dated 24.10.2025 (though mistakenly recorded as 24.12.2025 in
Annexure P-2), a second application was moved on 26.12.2025, pursuant
to which a separate FIR came to be registered. As per the said FIR, when
complainant was proceeding to his duty in his I-20 car, bearing
registration No. PB-07-BT-9579, the accused persons, namely Ajay @
Gola (armed with a dattar), Vijay Kumar (armed with a dattar), Arshdeep
Singh @ Pawan (armed with a dattar), Sunny Kumar alias Sunny Saga
(petitioner, stated to be armed with a stick), and Sanam @ Gora (armed
with a stick), intercepted and surrounded him. It is further alleged that
petitioner raised a lalkara to teach the complainant a lesson for acting as
an informant.
3. On the basis of these facts, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner has been unnecessarily harassed by the
registration of two separate FIRs arising out of the same set of
allegations, albeit with inconsistent and improved versions.
It is further argued that even in the first FIR registered at
Police Station Sadar Kapurthala, two incidents forming part of the same
transaction have already been recorded. Therefore, there was no necessity
to register a second FIR, merely on the ground that part of the occurrence
allegedly took place within the jurisdiction of another police station. It is
contended that subjecting the petitioner to investigation in two separate
FIRs, would grant undue leverage to the investigating agency to conduct
parallel investigations on the same cause of action.
Further, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court, in the case of T.T. Antony
vs. State of Kerala, 2001(3) RCR (Criminal) 436. It is further submitted
that petitioner is ready to join the investigation and fully cooperate, if
protected from arrest by this Court. Thus, counsel prays for grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present case.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed status
report dated 16.03.2026 in Court today, which is taken on record.
5. Learned State counsel, as well as counsel for the
complainant, submit that the two occurrences are entirely distinct,
involving different accused persons, different victims, different injuries,
different places of occurrence, and separate jurisdictions. It is contended
that treating the morning and evening incidents as part of a single
continuing offence would defeat the scope of a fair investigation and the
established legal procedure.
They further submit that petitioner is attempting to mislead the
Court by portraying the incidents as arising from the same cause of action,
whereas in fact, the occurrences are separate and cannot be treated as one, at
any stage of the investigation. Thus, they jointly pray for dismissal of the
present petition.
6. This Court has heard the submissions addressed by counsel for
the parties and has also gone through the record available before it, and finds it
appropriate to dispose of the present petition, with a direction to the petitioner
to join the investigation within two weeks from today, or as and when called by
the investigating agency, and in the eventuality of the arrest, petitioner would
be released on anticipatory bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the
satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall also be abide by all the
conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section
438(2) Cr.P.C.).
7. Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over his passport
to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses. Otherwise,
would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any
passport.
It is also directed that before leaving country any time during
trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of the Court.
8. With the directions recorded here above, present petition stands
disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
19.03.2026
Lavisha
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
