Arjun Singh vs State Of Punjab

Manisha Batra, J.

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 192 dated 19.08.2024, registered under Sections 103, 115(2), 109, 125, 333, 351(2), 191(3) and 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Gharinda, District Amritsar Rural.

The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of complainant Dilpreet Singh alleging therein that on 19.08.2024 at about 8:00 PM, he along with his father Lakhwinder Singh was standing outside their house at village Basarke Bhaini. Several persons of the village came there armed with pistols, datars and a dang and started abusing them. These persons included Arjan Singh son of Lakhbir Singh and the present petitioner, who is described in the FIR as Arjan Singh son of Anokha Singh and is stated to be armed with a pistol. The complainant attributed the occurrence to a minor quarrel between Arjan Singh and their children. When the complainant and his father tried to stop them, Arjan Singh and Sajjan Singh fired shots in the air. The complainant tried to snatch the pistol from Arjan Singh, upon which Manna Singh gave a datar blow on his head. His father tried to save him and during the scuffle, Arjan Singh struck a blow on the head of his father with the iron bracelet worn by him. On their raising alarm, the accused fled from the spot with their weapons. The complainant then left for the police station along with his uncle Desa Singh to report the matter. On the way, he received a telephonic call from his uncle Balwinder Singh, who informed him that the aforesaid persons had come to their house. The petitioner armed with a pistol was also among them and they had fired shots with an intention to kill the family members. On reaching there, he found Balwinder Singh, his aunt Amarjit Kaur and the seven years old daughter of Major Singh lying injured with bullet wounds. The injured were sent to Sri Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar. Amarjit Kaur succumbed to her injuries and offence under Section 103 of BNS was added. Empty cartridge cases of different bores were recovered from the place of occurrence. During investigation, the statements of injured Balwinder Singh and Lakhwinder Singh were recorded, in which they corroborated the prosecution version. The statement of injured Khushman was recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, in which she stated that one bullet each had hit her aunt, her uncle and herself. The particulars of some of the accused were corrected and Arjan Singh son of Lakhbir Singh has been shown as Gurpreet Singh @ Arjan Singh. Co-accused Lovepreet Singh was found to be innocent. Challan has been presented against some of the arrested co-accused and charges have been framed against them on 21.08.2025. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail, which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide order dated 03.09.2026 (Annexure P-6).

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity between the parties. The FIR mentions two persons named Arjan/Arjun Singh, one being the son of Lakhbir Singh and the other being the petitioner, who is the son of Anokh Singh. The assault upon Lakhwinder Singh is attributed merely to Arjan Singh, without any particulars to show that the said allegation is against the petitioner. The complainant was not an eye-witness to the firing at the house, as he was informed about the same on telephone by Balwinder Singh, and his version is based on hearsay. The allegation regarding the firing is collective in nature and no fatal shot or particular firearm injury has been attributed to the petitioner. Co-accused Dilbagh Singh and Karan Singh @ Manna have been extended the benefit of regular bail by this Court, whereas co-accused Jajj Singh and Jagroop Singh have been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Court. The petitioner is a permanent resident of the village. He has not been declared a proclaimed offender and substantial time has passed since the occurrence. He is not involved in any other case and is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required and no recovery is to be effected from him. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be granted concession of anticipatory bail.

Reply by way of affidavit has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner, who was named in the FIR as well as in the statement of injured eye-witness Balwinder Singh. He was a member of an unlawful assembly of armed assailants, which first assaulted the complainant side and thereafter launched a second attack upon the residence of the complainant. The occurrence resulted in firearm injuries to three persons and the death of Amarjit Kaur, and the offences involved are punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Merely because the fatal injury is alleged to have been caused by another member of the unlawful assembly, the criminal liability of the petitioner does not get diluted. The petitioner has been absconding and concealing himself in order to avoid his arrest. He has been declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 03.06.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar. His case is not at par with the co-accused who have been granted bail. For conducting thorough investigation in the matter, his custodial interrogation is must. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

This Court has heard the rival submissions.

The petitioner is alleged to have been a member of an unlawful assembly, which firstly assaulted the complainant and his father and thereafter reached their house and opened fire with an intention to kill the family members. The occurrence resulted in the death of Amarjit Kaur and firearm injuries to Balwinder Singh and a minor girl. As per the post mortem report (Annexure R-2), the death of Amarjit Kaur was caused by laceration of brain as a result of discharge of firearm, which was necessarily fatal. The injuries on the person of Balwinder Singh have been opined to be grievous in nature. The petitioner has been named in the FIR as one of the persons armed with a pistol in both parts of the occurrence. As per the reply, he has also been named by injured Balwinder Singh, in the statement recorded during investigation, as one of the assailants who had again assembled and attacked the complainant party. The plea regarding confusion in his identity does not help him at this stage. The FIR mentions both persons named Arjan Singh separately with their parentage and each of them is stated to be armed with a pistol. As per the reply, the other person has been shown as co-accused Gurpreet Singh @ Arjan Singh son of Lakhbir Singh, who was arrested on 26.08.2024 and from whom a pistol has been recovered. The question as to which of the two gave the bracelet blow to Lakhwinder Singh does not dilute the allegation of presence of the petitioner at the spot with a pistol, and the same is a matter for trial. The plea of hearsay also does not advance his case, as the complainant himself witnessed the first part of the occurrence. The second part is supported by the statement of injured witness Balwinder Singh, who had given him the information on telephone. It is true that the fatal shot or any particular firearm injury has not been specifically attributed to the petitioner, and his name does not figure among the persons shown to have fired at the injured in the injury chart (Annexure R-1). However, he is alleged to have been present in both parts of the occurrence with a firearm, and his liability as a member of the alleged unlawful assembly, in view of Section 190 of BNS, is to be examined during trial. The allegations prima facie make out a case for commission of alleged offences.

The petitioner cannot claim parity with the co-accused who have been granted bail. Co-accused Karan Singh @ Manna and Dilbagh Singh were extended the benefit of regular bail vide orders dated 06.03.2026 and 03.07.2026 (Annexures P-4 and P-5) respectively, after having undergone custody of more than one year. They were alleged to be carrying a datar and a dang respectively, whereas the petitioner is alleged to be armed with a pistol. The benefit given to co-accused Karan Singh @ Manna was on the basis of the part attributed to him, which was causing simple injuries with a blunt weapon, and the said order does not help the petitioner. The case of co-accused Jajj Singh and Jagroop Singh are also on different footing. Moreover, the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 03.06.2026. It is well settled that a person who has absconded and has been declared a proclaimed offender is ordinarily not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. Having evaded the process of law, he cannot seek this discretionary relief, particularly when no exceptional circumstance has been shown in his favour.

As recorded in the impugned order (Annexure P-6), the pistol allegedly carried by the petitioner is yet to be recovered and its source is to be ascertained. His mere offer to join the investigation at this stage does not meet this requirement. His custodial interrogation is required for conducting thorough and proper investigation in the matter. In case his custodial interrogation is denied to the investigating agency, the same will leave many glaring loopholes and gaps adversely affecting the investigation. The powers under Section 482 of BNSS are extraordinary and the same are to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. However, in the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.