Jobanjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in GD No. 14 dated 21.12.2025 under Sections 333, 115(2), 117(2), 324(4), 191(3) and 190 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in FIR No. 205 dated 10.12.2025 under Sections 333, 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 117(2), 324(4), 191(3) and 190 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Rajasansi, Amritsar Rural, District Amritsar. This is the first petition for anticipatory bail.

¶11

On 18.05.2026, following order was passed:

¶12

“1. Present is the first petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 438 Cr.P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing G.D. No. 14 dated 21.12.2025 under Sections 333, 115(2), 117(2), 324(4), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 452, 323, 325, 427, 148 and 149 IPC), in FIR No. 205 dated 10.12.2025 registered under Sections 333, 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 117(2), 324(4), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 452, 323, 324, 326, 325, 427, 148 and 149 IPC) at Police Station Rajasansi, Amritsar Rural, District Amritsar.

¶13

AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.15 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

CRM-M-27936-2026 (O&M)

¶15

-2-

¶16

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the present case is a case of version and cross-version arising out of the same occurrence dated 28.10.2025 and the present cross-case came to be registered after a delay of about 11 days from the registration of the main FIR, for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecution. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity between the parties. Learned counsel further submits that as per the prosecution version itself, the specific allegation against the petitioner is that he was armed with a baseball bat and had allegedly given a blow on the right side of chest of injured Lovepreet Singh, which injury has been opined to be simple in nature and not on any vital part of the body. It is further argued that the grievous injury has not been specifically attributed to the present petitioner. It has further been argued that the present case is a free fight between both the parties and even the petitioner side had suffered injuries in the occurrence. In this regard, learned counsel submits that the petitioner himself suffered multiple injuries, some of which were caused by sharp-edged weapons, and the cross-version recorded on the statement of Jagjit Singh clearly demonstrates that the complainant party was also the aggressor. Learned counsel further contends that the police itself has recorded that both the occurrences are part of the same transaction and investigation in both the cases is being conducted together. Learned counsel for

¶17

AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.15 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-27936-2026 (O&M)

¶19

-3-

¶20

the petitioner has further argued that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner and the alleged weapon attributed to him is merely a common sports equipment i.e. a baseball bat. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case, has clean antecedents and is a permanent resident of District Amritsar having deep roots in society. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is stated to be unnecessary and it is contended that his arrest would serve no fruitful purpose and would amount to pretrial punishment.

¶21

3. Notice of motion.

¶22

4. On asking of the Court, Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and has opposed the present petition and submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is argued that the petitioner was specifically named in the cross-version and was attributed an active role in the occurrence. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner was armed with a baseball bat and inflicted injury on the left side of chest of injured Lovepreet Singh during the assault committed by the accused party after forcibly entering the complainant’s house. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the occurrence was a result of a pre-existing dispute between the parties and the accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly while being armed with deadly weapons. It is contended that the injuries suffered by the complainant side, including one grievous injury, are duly

¶23

AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.15 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CRM-M-27936-2026 (O&M)

¶25

-4-

¶26

corroborated by the medico-legal reports and the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail merely on the ground that a cross-version has also been recorded. It is further argued that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for effective and fair investigation of the case and to ascertain the manner in which the occurrence took place and the role played by each of the accused persons. On these grounds, learned State counsel has prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

¶27

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book carefully.

¶28

6. Without commenting upon the merits of the case and keeping in view the fact that the present matter is a case of version and cross-version arising out of the same occurrence, coupled with the nature of allegations and injuries attributed to the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The specific injury attributed to the petitioner is stated to be on the left side of chest of the injured with a baseball bat and the same has been opined to be simple in nature. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner himself suffered injuries in the occurrence and cross-cases have been registered with regard to the same incident. The question as to which party was the aggressor and the exact manner of occurrence are matters to be adjudicated upon during trial on the basis of evidence led by the parties. No recovery is stated to be effected from the

¶29

AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.15 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CRM-M-27936-2026 (O&M)

¶31

-5-

¶32

petitioner and his custodial interrogation does not appear to be necessary at this stage. The petitioner is stated to have clean antecedents and has expressed his willingness to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency.

¶33

7. Accordingly, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim anticipatory bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer concerned. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by all the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶34

8. Adjourned to 14.07.2026.”

¶35

Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Kulbir Singh submits that petitioner has joined investigation and is no longer required for custodial interrogation.

¶36

Petitioner has joined investigation pursuant to order of this Court dated 18.05.2026 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 18.05.2026, 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.

¶37

Pending CRM(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly.

¶38

(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) 14.07.2026 JUDGE Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶39

AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.15 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Jobanjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jobanjit Singh 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

Ram Niwas Vs Pala Ram and Ors.

Natasha Rani & Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Altus Space Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs Greater Mohali Area Development Authority

Jaspreet Singh @ Jassi Vs State of Punjab

Rajat Rastogi Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sarika Kalra @ Kalra Sarika Ashok Vs State of Haryana and Another