AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) (earlier Section 438 of the Cr. P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in cross case bearing GD No.25 dated 02.05.2026, registered for commission of offences punishable under Sections 118(2), 117(2), 115(2), 126(2) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Kathu Nangal, District Amritsar Rural arising out of FIR No.33 dated 01.03.2026, registered for commission of offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 298, 324(4), 351(2), 191(3) & 190 of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Kathu Nangal, District Amritsar Rural.
The FIR in question pertains to waylaying and causing injuries to the husband of the complainant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR. It has also been argued that the present case is one involving version and cross-version. Learned counsel has contended that the petitioner had earlier got FIR No.33 dated 01.03.2026 registered against Sakattar Singh and others, and that the lodging of the GD ibid on 02.05.2026 is merely a counter-blast to the aforesaid FIR, particularly when the same was lodged after an unexplained delay of about 03 months when alleged incident had occurred on 09.02.2026. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner did not cause any of the alleged injuries; rather, the petitioner himself sustained injuries at the hands of the complainant side. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner is a man aged 47 years with clean antecedents.
Learned counsel has asserted that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Moreover, the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and, hence, no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is prayed for.
Learned State counsel has filed short reply by way of an affidavit dated 26.08.2026, which is already on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. The role attributed to the petitioner, as per the said short reply, reads thus:
“Role of the petitioner
7.That as per the version of the complainant Gurbir Kaur, the petitioner armed with a barsha/ spear had attacked upon her husband Sakattar Singh and caused injuries on his finger, thumb of left hand and right side of forehead with three consecutive blows of Barsha and fled away from the spot and injury was declared as grievous in nature.”
It has been iterated that given severity and gravity of the offence, there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioner may abscond or tamper with the evidence, if he is enlarged on bail. Learned State counsel has further iterated that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative for the purpose of effective and fair investigation and to unearth the case of the prosecution. On these submissions, dismissal of the present petition is entreated for.
I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.
As per the prosecution case, it is borne out that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. As per the prosecution case, as also the order passed by the Court below declining the anticipatory bail plea of the petitioner, it is, prima facie, borne out that the petitioner, armed with a sharp-edged weapon, i.e. a spear (barsha), waylaid the husband of the complainant and inflicted a blow which landed on his left-hand finger, followed by another blow on the thumb of his left hand and a third blow which struck his forehead. The allegations against the petitioner are not only specific but also find due corroboration from the medical evidence, which indicates that injury No.1 is grievous in nature. The nature and gravity of the allegations, the manner in which the assault is alleged to have been carried out, and the specific role attributed to the petitioner, disentitle him to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail.
No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR.
It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wider impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State v. Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6)
“6.We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.”
In view of seriousness of the allegations, this Court finds no compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the petitioner. Granting bail, at this stage, would not only undermine the administration of justice but may also embolden the accused.
In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.