AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PARTAP SINGH …Petitioner V/S STATE OF PUNJAB …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Arnav Sood, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, DAG Punjab. Mr. C.L. Verma, Advocate for the complainant.
**** SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J. (Oral)
Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.0079 dated 13.10.2025, under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 333, 351(2), 3(5) BNS and Section 118(2) BNS added later on vide DDR No. 26 dated 06.11.2025, Police Station Hajipur, District Hoshiarpur. This is the first petition for anticipatory bail.
On 19.08.2026, following order was passed:
“... The facts, as noticed by learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, in his order dated 13.08.2026, regarding which no dispute has been raised, are as follows:
“The FIR in this case has been registered on the basis of statement made by complainant Vijay Singh. As per his version, on 11.10.2025, he was present at his house. At that time, accused Pawan Kumar, his brother Partap Kumar, both of whom were armed with Dattars entered into his house. They were accompanied by Smt.Manju Rani wife of Partap Kumar and their mother Banto Devi. Partap Kumar gave a Dattar blow on the left bicep of the complainant. Accused Pawan Kumar gave a Dattar blow on his left wrist. When the complainant fell down, accused Partap Kumar gave another Dattar blow on his right foot. Smt. Manju Rani gave a Chappal blow on his left shoulder and Banto Devi allegedly gave slaps to the complainant. When the other members of the family of the complainant reached there, the accused ran away. As per the complainant, he has sown vegetables in his plot adjacent to his house. He had raised an objection that dog of the accused persons has been spoiling his vegetables by urinating and excreting in the said plot. Due to said grudge the accused attacked him."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s wife, co-accused Manju Rani was allowed interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 24.06.2026. He further submits that injury attributed to the petitioner was on left bicep and on right foot of the complainant. Both injuries were simple in nature, therefore, petitioner, who had clean antecedents, deserved to be released on pre-arrest bail.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG Punjab, who is present in the Court accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He however, concedes that petitioner was attributed simple injuries with datar.
In the given facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of arrest, petitioner shall be released on interim anticipatory bail subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. Petitioner shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Status report in the matter be filed on 23.09.2026.”
Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Gurwinderjit Singh submits that petitioner has joined investigation and is no longer required for custodial interrogation. He further submits that offence under Section 238 BNS was added in the FIR as weapon of offence was not recovered.
Learned counsel for the complainant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
Petitioner has joined investigation pursuant to order of this Court dated 19.08.2026 and his further custodial interrogation is not required. In the circumstances of the case but without commenting on merits, the petition is allowed and order dated dated 19.08.2026, granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner, is made absolute, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Pending CRM(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) 23.09.2026 JUDGE