Jaspreet Singh @ Jassa vs State Of Punjab

Sanjay Vashisth, J

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-

Name of petitioner(s)

FIR No

Date

Section(s)

Police Station

District

Jaspreet Singh @ Jassa

52

17.05.2025

115(2),126(2), 351(2) and 109 (added later on) of BNS, 2023

Punjab Agriculture University (PAU)

Ludhiana

After hearing the arguments of petitioner's counsel, on 15.09.2025, following order was recorded:-

"1. xxx

Allegation levelled by the complainant, Amandeep Singh, in the present FIR is that petitioner used to tease his wife, and upon raising an objection, he was beaten by the petitioner, Jaspreet Singh @ Jassa.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no injury declared as dangerous to life and a false case has been fabricated against the petitioner.

Further, it is submitted that against the complainant, Amandeep Singh, DDR No. 14 dated 12.05.2025, under Sections 118(1), 332(C), 351(2), and 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, has been registered at Police Station Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana, as a cross version of the impugned FIR.

Although the complainant, Amandeep Singh, was granted interim anticipatory bail, vide order dated 06.08.2025 and was directed to join the investigation, the said bail order was subsequently confirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated 13.08.2025 (Annexures P-3 and P-4, respectively). However, truthfulness of the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR is yet to be established by the complainant/ prosecution. Moreover, petitioner is ready to join the investigation and fully cooperate, if protected from arrest by this Court. Thus, prays for grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present case.

Notice of motion.

On advance notice, Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab, puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent - State, and Mr. Sushil Sheoran, Advocate, puts in appearance on behalf of the complainant, and files his vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record.

Learned State Counsel, as well as counsel for the complainant, points out that complainant, Amandeep Singh, has suffered total five fractures. It is further emphasized that there was no provocation caused by the complainant which could justify the grievous injuries inflicted upon him, particularly the severe injuries to his head caused by kirpan.

Adjourned to 24.09.2025.

Let a status report be filed by learned State Counsel on the next date of hearing, after thoroughly examining all relevant facts, including the CCTV footage. The report should also address and confirm the allegations made by the petitioner regarding the teasing of the complainant's wife.

Meanwhile, petitioner shall not be arrested. However, issue of joining of investigation by the petitioner would be examined on the next date of hearing, after reviewing the status report, which is yet to be filed by learned State counsel."

On the very outset, counsel for the complainant points out that in Para No.3 of order dated 15.09.2025, it is wrongly mentioned as DDR No.14 dated 12.05.2025, whereas actually it has to be dated 20.05.2025. Counsel for complainant also points out that in the said DDR case, in which complainant-Amandeep Singh was made accused at the instance of petitioner herein has been granted anticipatory bail by the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 06.08.2025 (Annexure P-3). In Para 20 of the status report, it has been noticed that as per CCTV footage, it was complainant-Amandeep Singh, who was seen while running by holding a sword in his hand, towards the shop of his wife. Further, it is explained that with the said sword, complainant Amandeep Singh inflicted blows on left arm, shoulder and back of petitioner causing bleeding injuries.

During the course of hearing, petitioner's counsel submits that, in fact, genesis of the incident have been concealed in the FIR. Rather, a concocted version has been introduced instead of actual truth and moreover, now parties have resolved their dispute by way of amicable settlement and, therefore, custodial interrogation won't be required and petitioner is ready to join investigation also.

On the other hand, learned State counsel also does not dispute the factual position which has been recorded in Para 20 of the status report and counsel for the complainant Mr. Sushil Sheoran confirms the factum of compromise between the parties and further submits that he has no objection if present anticipatory bail is allowed.

In view of the facts discussed hereabove and there being admitted position that dispute has now been resolved between the parties by way of amicable settlement, this Court does not find any reason to subject the petitioner to custodial interrogation.

Consequently, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the terms and conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.

In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over his passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport.

Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.