Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Singh @ Sonu vs State Of Punjab on 22 April, 2026
107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.19669 of 2026
Date of decision: 22.04.2026
Surinder Singh @ Sonu
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Present :- Mr. Atinderpal Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*****
MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral)
1. This is the first petition under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.) for the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.172 dated 24.10.2025, registered under Sections 118(1), 118(2), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 324, 326, 34 IPC) at Police Station Rajasansi, District Amritsar Rural.
2. Briefly stated, as per the prosecution version, the occurrence took place on 27.09.2025 at about 8:12 AM, when the accused persons were allegedly quarrelling with Hardeep Singh at his house over a dispute regarding a wall. Upon hearing the noise, the complainant Heera Singh reached the spot. It is alleged that co-accused Paramjit Kaur raised a lalkara, whereafter co-accused Jatinder Singh and the present petitioner Surinder Singh @ Sonu, both armed with dattar, along with Ranjit Singh (empty-handed), caused injuries to the complainant. The occurrence is stated to have taken place at the instigation of the petitioner, resulting in NEETU RANI 2026.04.22 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD CRM-M No.19669 of 2026 -2- grievous injuries to the complainant. The allegations against the petitioner are that he actively participated in the occurrence.
3. It is contended that the FIR has been falsely lodged on the basis of a concocted story and the petitioner has no role in the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that there is an unexplained delay of about 27 days in lodging the FIR, as the alleged incident occurred on 27.09.2025 whereas the complaint was made and the FIR was registered on 24.10.2025. It is also argued that no specific injury or overt act has been attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner further asserts that the FIR is a result of political rivalry between the parties, as the complainant and the petitioner belong to rival political groups. It is also alleged that the complainant is in the habit of making false complaints to extort money and later compromises the matter. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no independent witness supporting the prosecution version.
4. Notice of motion.
5. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State and opposes the present bail application on the ground that, as per the MLR, the victim has received two injuries with a sharp-edged weapon. It is submitted that injury No.1 has been declared as simple in nature, whereas injury No.2 has been declared as grievous, thereby attracting the offence under Section 326 IPC/Section 118(2) of the BNS, 2023. It is further contended that the said grievous injury has been specifically attributed to the petitioner, which was inflicted by him with a sickle on the calf of the right leg of the victim. It is also argued that the case of the petitioner is not on parity with co-accused NEETU RANI 2026.04.22 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD CRM-M No.19669 of 2026 -3- Paramjit Kaur, as only a lalkara has been attributed to her.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
7. From the perusal of the MLR, it is evident that the victim has suffered a grievous injury caused by a sharp-edged weapon on the right leg, which has been specifically attributed to the petitioner. The nature of allegations and the role attributed to the petitioner clearly distinguish his case from that of co-accused Paramjit Kaur, who has been attributed only a lalkara. Thus, the plea of parity is not available to the petitioner.
8. Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the specific attribution of grievous injury attracting the offence under Section 326 IPC/Section 118(2) of the BNS, this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the present petition is hereby dismissed.
9. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(MANDEEP PANNU)
22.04.2026 JUDGE
neetu
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
NEETU RANI
2026.04.22 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
PHHC, CHD