Gurpreet Singh vs State of Punjab

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.29 dated 17.02.2026, registered under Sections 127(2), 115(2), 190, 191(3) and 117(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Kabarwala, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

As per the allegation, on 12.02.2026 at about 11:45 a.m., complainant-Sunil Sharma, Area Collection Manager, HDFC Bank, Malout, along with Kailash Chand, Rashipal, Shinda Singh and Ashu Juneja had gone to the house of the petitioner Gurpreet Singh for collection of the agricultural limit/loan amount. It was alleged that after they rang the bell, the petitioner came out and asked them to wait for two-three minutes. The petitioner came out armed with a revolver, abused and threatened the complainant and aimed the revolver at his chest and attempted to fire but the revolver did not discharge. The petitioner thereafter punched the complainant on his chest, struck him on the forehead and near the right eye with the butt of the revolver, throttled him with his left hand and after he fell to the ground, kicked him on his lower back and the calves of both legs and further gave him punches and kicks. When Kailash Chand came forward to rescue the complainant, the petitioner, along with four unidentified persons, caught hold of him, throttled him, kicked him on his back and right ankle and thereafter the petitioner and his associates took the complainant and Kailash Chand inside the house and confined them. They were subsequently released when a crowd gathered at the spot. The complainant and Kailash Chand were thereafter taken to the hospital for treatment. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and the same are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib for grant of anticipatory bail but the same had been dismissed, vide order dated 03.07.2026.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, the complainant party was the aggressor. It is argued that there was a delay of about five days in registration of the FIR and that the petitioner himself had suffered injuries in the occurrence, regarding which a DDR was recorded. Learned counsel further submits that the allegation regarding use of the revolver is false, particularly as the weapon did not discharge. It is also submitted that the dispute arose in the context of recovery of a loan amount and that the petitioner has already paid the amount due. He is ready to join the investigation. No recovery is to be effected from him. His custodial interrogation is not required. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

Notice of motion.

Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter. She has submitted that there are specific and serious allegations against the petitioner, who had assaulted the complainant with a revolver and had caused injuries to him and another injured person. It is further submitted that the matter is under investigation and that considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. His custodial interrogation is must for conducting proper investigation in the matter. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

This Court has heard the rival submissions.

The petitioner is alleged to have come out of his house armed with a revolver, threatened the complainant and attempted to fire at him. He is further alleged to have assaulted the complainant with the butt of the revolver, throttled him and thereafter repeatedly kicked and punched him. When the co-injured Kailash Chand intervened, the petitioner, along with his associates, is alleged to have assaulted him as well and thereafter confined both the injured persons inside the house. The complainant is stated to have suffered eight injuries, whereas Kailash Chand suffered three injuries, one of which was opined to be grievous, resulting in addition of Section 117(2) BNS. Considering the specific allegations attributed to the petitioner, the alleged use of a revolver in the occurrence, the nature of injuries suffered by the victims and the stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined to extend the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. His custodial interrogation is required for conducting 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.