Harjeet Singh 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.225 dated 31.07.2026 registered under Sections 126(2), 118(1), 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNS") (Sections 117(2) and 118(2) of BNS added later on) at Police Station Nehianwala, District Bathinda.

The aforementioned FIR has been registered on the basis of a statement recorded by the complainant Chiman Singh, alleging therein that on 29th July 2026, he along with his cousin brother Manjit Singh was going towards his village on a motorbike. When they had reached near Amargarh village, suddenly a car came from the opposite side and stopped their vehicle. The accused Falel Singh, who is the father of the present petitioner, came out of the car while carrying a sword, the petitioner was holding a baseball bat. Both of them were accompanied by two more persons, unknown to the complainant. Accused Falel Singh made an exhortation to teach a lesson to the complainant, and then the present petitioner opened an assault upon him by striking a blow with his baseball bat on his head. The complainant tried to save himself by raising his left hand and his left wrist was injured and he had fallen down. Then accused Falel Singh caused injuries on his person with his sword, and he was also assaulted by the unknown persons present there. His cousin brother also sustained injury on his head. On clamour being raised, the assailants fled from the spot.

After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. 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, Bathinda vide order dated 25th of August 2026.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to personal rivalry. In fact, at the particular point when the occurrence is alleged to have been committed, he was present at village Gilli Patti and then had gone to a barber saloon at village Goniana Mandi, and as such, the question of his being present at the place of occurrence did not arise at all. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the video recording contained in the pen drive annexed with the petition showing his presence at a hair-cutting saloon at 4:38 PM, whereas since as per the FIR, the occurrence had taken place at 4:30 PM. It is also argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is inordinate and unexplained delay in reporting the matter to the police. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. It is, thus, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

Notice of motion.

Learned State counsel has accepted notice of the petition. Memo of appearance on behalf of the complainant has also been filed. Learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has argued that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner, who, along with his father and two unknown persons, had voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries to the complainant and his cousin brother by assaulting them. The plea of his alibi has no force since the places which he is mentioning are at a distance of hardly 1/1.5 km from the place of occurrence. The allegations show his active complicity in the crime, and therefore, it is argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

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

The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have assaulted the complainant and his cousin brother, thereby causing simple as well as grievous injuries. The injury that has been attributed to the petitioner has also been opined to be grievous in nature. In the same occurrence, the complainant sustained multiple fractures. The plea of alibi, as taken by the petitioner on the basis of a video recording, cannot be accepted at this stage, and the veracity thereof has to be tested during trial. Taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as leveled against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that his custodial interrogation is required for the purpose of conducting a thorough investigation. The case is at its nascent stage. It is well settled that anticipatory bail to an accused can be granted in exceptional circumstances only as a person couched in comparative safety of pre-arrest bail would certainly not disclose all the facts within his knowledge. In case custodial interrogation of the petitioner is denied to the Investigating Agency, that shall leave many glaring loopholes and gaps, thereby adversely effecting the investigation. The Court is also required to see that an order of anticipatory bail does not operate as inroad in the normal legal procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court. It is well settled proposition of law that the powers for grant of pre-arrest bail are to be exercised by the Court in extra-ordinary and exceptional circumstances and with great caution while taking into consideration the nature of the accusation and the sentence which the conviction may entail. In the instant case, no such exceptional or extra-ordinary circumstance is, however, made out from the pleas as taken by the petitioner. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 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.