Jarmanjit Singh @ Jarman Vs State of Punjab

“The instant petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.213 dated 24.10.2024, registered under Sections 333, 115(2), 117(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023, at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar Rural.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the only allegation against the present petitioner is that he gave a brick blow. It is contended that the offences registered against the petitioner are mostly bailable in nature. It is further contended that the petitioner is a young boy of 18 years having clear antecedents and the incident ocurred due to panchayat election and the present FIR has been registered after a delay of 9 days. Notice of motion.

¶19

Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab, puts in appearance as advance copy of petition had been served to respondent-State and opposed the contention submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the present petitioner actively participated in the commission of offence and a specific attribution is mentioned that he gave a brick blow to the injured.

¶20

JATIN 2026.07.15 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CRM-M-3717-2026

¶22

2

¶23

Heard.

¶24

Keeping in view the facts of the present case and the role attributed to the petitioner; he is not required for any recovery purpose; the offences are mostly bailable in nature; the petitioner is a young boy of 18 years and the incident reported after a delay and ocurred due to panchayat election, the petitioner is directed to join investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. In the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on interim bail on furnishing personal bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer till the next date of hearing subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.). Adjourned to 02.04.2026.”

¶25

Learned State counsel, on instructions, has stated that pursuant

¶26

to the order dated 22.01.2026, the petitioner has joined investigation and is no longer required for custodial interrogation.

¶27

Keeping in view the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and cooperated therein and is no longer required by the State for further custodial interrogation, this Court is inclined to confirm the order dated 22.01.2026, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS.

¶28

Ordered accordingly.

¶29

This order should not be treated as “blanket” order. It will not be read granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence.

¶30

Liberty is reserved in favour of State/complainant to move for cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioner violates any condition stipulated under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 or upon showing any other sufficient cause.

¶31

JATIN 2026.07.15 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

CRM-M-3717-2026

¶33

3

¶34