CRM-M/51199/2026 of GURMAIL SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 10 September 2026

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.232 dated 23.12.2021, registered under Sections 307, 326, 325, 324, 323 and 34 of IPC at Police Station Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the statement of complainant Gurdev Singh alleging therein that on 20.12.2021, while he along with his son Narender Singh was working in his agricultural fields, accused Ranjit Singh, armed with a gandasa, Darshan Singh armed with a soti and and Ghichar Singh armed with a danda reached the spot and started demolishing the boundary of the field. When the complainant objected, a quarrel ensued during which Ranjit

Singh gave gandasa blows causing injuries on the complainant's head and left hand, whereas the other accused also inflicted injuries with their respective weapons. It was further alleged that the occurrence had taken place at the instigation of the present petitioner Gurmail Singh, owing to previous enmity relating to a land dispute. On the basis of the said allegations, the aforesaid FIR was registered.

3. During investigation, however, the petitioner was found innocent and his name was kept in Column No.2 of the police report. Thereafter, during trial, complainant's son Narender Singh appeared as PW-1 and, while reiterating the prosecution version, stated that the injuries had been caused at the instigation of the present petitioner and Balvir Singh alias Kaka. On the basis of the said testimony, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the prosecution, which came to be allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide order dated 17.04.2026, summoning the petitioner and Balvir Singh alias Kaka to face trial as additional accused. Apprehending his arrest, the present petition has been filed.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he was found innocent during investigation and was consciously placed in Column No.2 of the challan. It is submitted that no specific overt act or injury has been attributed to the petitioner in the FIR and even the allegation in the testimony of PW-1 is confined to the assertion that the occurrence took place at his instigation. It is further argued that the petitioner has been summoned only by virtue of the order passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Nothing is to be recovered from him. He is ready to appear before the learned trial Court. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case and his co-accused Darshan Singh, Ranjit Singh and Balvir Singh alias Kaka have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioner be granted anticipatory bail.

5. Notice of motion.

6. Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter. It is argued by her that the petitioner has been summoned by the learned trial Court after recording satisfaction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the statement of PW-1 recorded during trial. It is argued that once the competent Court has found sufficient material to summon the petitioner as an additional accused, he is required to submit to the jurisdiction of the trial Court and face the proceedings in accordance with law. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. This Court has heard the rival submissions.

8. Admittedly, the petitioner was found innocent during investigation and was placed in Column No.2 of the police report. He has subsequently been summoned to face trial only by virtue of the order passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is not sought to be interrogated in connection with any further investigation and is now required to appear before the trial Court to face the proceedings pursuant to the summoning order. The petitioner has also relied upon the fact that the co-accused have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately served by protecting the petitioner for a limited period so as to enable him to surrender before the learned trial Court and seek regular bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned trial Court within a period of ten days from today. On his appearance, the learned trial Court shall release the petitioner on bail on furnishing adequate personal/surety bonds to its satisfaction and subject to such terms and conditions as it may deem appropriate in accordance with law.

9. Till the expiry of the aforesaid period of ten days or till the petitioner appears before the learned trial Court, whichever is earlier, the arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed.

10. It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to appear before the learned trial Court within the aforesaid period, the interim protection granted by this order shall automatically stand vacated without any further reference to this Court.

(MANISHA BATRA) 10.09.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Whether Speaking/Reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No