Daaman Bali Vs State of Punjab

Petitioner, an accused in case FIR No.07 dated 20.03.2025, registered against him, at the instance of one Maninder Singh, for commission of offence punishable under Sections 118(2), 115(2), 61(2), 3(5), 351(2), 351(3) of BNS at Police Station GRP, District Jalandhar, has prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail.

¶16

On 16.06.2025, following order was passed by this Court:-

¶17

“Petitioner prays for the grant of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case arising from FIR No.07 dated 20.03.2025 registered under Section 118(2), 115 (2), 61(2), 3(5), 351 (2), 351(3) of BNS, 2023 at Police Station GRP (Govt. Railway Police), District Jalandhar.

¶18

Learned counsel representing the petitioner inter alia contends that there is delay of 5 days in registration of the FIR and the petitioner is alleged to have caused injury to the victim on his left arm.

¶19

Notice of motion.

¶20

On asking of the Court, Mr. Salil Sablok, Sr. DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State. List on 11.08.2025.

¶21

In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail subject to furnishing personal bonds and surety to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) BNSS, 2023.”

¶22

Pursuant thereto, the status report by way of affidavit of Mr.

¶23

Tejpal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Zonal GRP, Ludhiana has

¶24

HAMANT 2025.09.05 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CRM-M-32492-2025

¶26

2

¶27

been placed on record. In para 6 thereof, it has been specifically pointed out that pursuant to grant of interim anticipatory bail, petitioner has joined the investigation and the weapon of offence allegedly used by him has also been recovered.

¶28

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Falsity of the case set up by complainant is apparent from the fact that there has been unexplained delay of 5 days in lodging the FIR. Further, as per learned counsel, the petitioner has already joined the investigation, got recovered the alleged weapon of offence and as such interim bail granted to the petitioner may be confirmed.

¶29

Learned State counsel has also intimated that the petitioner has joined investigation and is no more required for any custodial investigation in this case nor he is required for further investigation.

¶30

Heard.

¶31

Keeping in view the above submissions made by learned State counsel and the fact that the petitioner had joined the investigation, interim bail granted vide order dated 16.06.2025 is hereby confirmed, subject to conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) BNSS. Further the petitioner is directed to join investigation as and when required in future by way of written notice for such purpose to be served by Investigating Officer of this case upon the petitioner; he will not tamper with the evidence nor will influence the witnesses and will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

¶32

The petition stands allowed.

¶33

	(AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE
04.09.2025
Hemant
	Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
	Whether reportable : Yes / No

¶34

HAMANT 2025.09.05 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Daaman Bali v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daaman Bali v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurjeet Singh and Another Vs Ramandeep Singh

Krishan Lal Vs Anil Gulati

Harbir Singh Alias Harvir Singh Vs Hemant Gulati

M/S Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited Vs Nachattar Singh

Pal Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another

Sikander Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another