Bobby @ Bobby Atwal vs State of Punjab

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.14 dated 14.01.2026 registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala.

Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Simranjit Dhir alleging that on the night of 13.01.2026 while taking a walk, she had reached near the shop of her nephew Vijay Kumar and had seen the petitioner along with the coaccused and some other unknown persons while standing outside his shop and assaulting Arshdeep son of Joginderpal with the weapons which they were carrying. Within the sight of the complainant, her nephew Vijay Kumar had come out of his shop but was wrongfully restrained by accused Love and Preet who caught hold of his arms. Accused Kashish Kumar struck a blow with datar on the head of Vijay Kumar. The petitioner struck blow with datar on the head of victim Arshdeep. Accused Karandeep Singh struck blow on Vijay Kumar and all others also caused injuries to them with their respective weapons. Accused Himanshu had struck blow with a bracelet (karha) on the face of Vijay Kumar.

After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. On 15.01.2026, a cross case bearing DDR No.1 was registered on the statement of Ajay Kumar a member of the group of the present petitioner. Investigation is underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which was dismissed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala vide order dated 06.04.2026.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is a case of version and cross version and a cross case has been registered against the members of the complainant party. Vijay Kumar, nephew of the complainant had struck blow with a datar on the head of Ajay Kumar with intent to kill him. Arshdeep alleged victim in the FIR had also given kicks to him on the fateful day. He had sustained three injuries at their hands. There is a delay of one day in lodging of the FIR which has not been satisfactorily explained. The co-accused has been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the said benefit. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

Notice of motion.

Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition and has vehemently argued that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner. His custodial interrogation is required for conducting thorough investigation in the matter. There is no extraordinary or exceptional circumstance for grant of pre arrest bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner by forming membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused is alleged to have voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries on the person of Vijay Kumar and Arshdeep. Though it is a case of version and cross version as injury by one member of group of the petitioner is also alleged to have been sustained at the hands of members of the complainant party, however, there are specific allegations against the petitioner that he had struck blow with datar on the head of Arshdeep Deep, thereby causing injury which has been declared as grievous in nature. For conducting thorough and proper investigation in the matter, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. In case, the same is denied to the investigation agency, that shall leave many glaring loopholes and gaps, adversely affecting the investigation. Even otherwise, the well settled proposition of law is that the powers for grant of pre arrest bail are required to be exercised in extraordinary and exceptional circumstances whereas no such circumstances are made out in the present case. 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, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner.

Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.