Harpreet Singh vs State of Punjab

The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.), seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 146 dated 02.07.2026 initially under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 191(3) and 190 BNS (corresponding to Sections 324, 323, 148 and 149 IPC), with Section 118(2) BNS/326 IPC added subsequently registered at Police Station Sultanwind, District Police Commissionerate, Amritsar.

The prosecution case, as emerging from the FIR, is that a dispute relating to land/property existed between the parties. The complainant is stated to be in possession of land situated at Khoo Kharewala, Village Sultanwind, District Amritsar, in respect whereof civil proceedings were already pending before the competent Court. The complainant's side claims that an injunction/stay order in respect of the said property was already operating in its favour. As per the prosecution version, on the date of occurrence, the complainant party went to the disputed land. The accused persons allegedly arrived there armed with weapons. The allegations include the use of a datar, a sharp-edged weapon, as well as a baseball bat/blunt weapon.

It is further alleged that one of the accused raised a lalkara exhorting the others to catch hold of the complainant party. Thereafter, one of the accused allegedly caught hold of Manjit Singh, whereupon an assault took place. The prosecution version attributes injuries to the accused persons by use of the weapons allegedly carried by them. The injured persons were thereafter taken for medical examination. The medico-legal record, as noticed in the proceedings, reflected multiple injuries. Some of the injuries were opined to have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon, whereas other injuries were attributed to a blunt weapon.

Subsequently, Section 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, was added in the case after consideration of the nature of the injuries.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of the pre-existing civil dispute between the parties regarding the land. Learned counsel further submits that there is an unexplained delay of about ten days in registration of the FIR.

It is also contended that the petitioner has been falsely nominated and that the material evidence, including the FIR, medico-legal reports and CCTV footage, is already in possession of the investigating agency and no useful purpose would be served by custodial interrogation of the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that the evidentiary value and authenticity of the CCTV footage are matters which would ultimately be examined during trial and the same cannot be treated as conclusive against the petitioner at the stage of consideration of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the order passed in favour of co-accused Kashmir Singh, whereby he was granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner is similarly situated and is entitled to the benefit of parity. It is also submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedents, is not involved in any other criminal case, has not been declared a proclaimed offender and is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency.

Notice of motion.

Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State. Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the complainant and filed his memo of appearance, which is taken on record.

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail by submitting that the CCTV footage collected during investigation clearly depicts the occurrence and the role of the accused. It is further submitted that the injured persons had actually suffered injuries and the medical evidence corroborates the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution.

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the petitioner cannot claim parity with co-accused Kashmir Singh. He submitted that no use of weapon was attributed to Kashmir Singh, whereas the petitioner has been attributed an active role and the use of three blows of datar has specifically been alleged against him. It is further submitted that, having regard to the nature of allegations, the weapon attributed to the petitioner and the injuries suffered by the injured persons, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out at this stage.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record.

In the present case, the prosecution has attributed a specific and active role to the petitioner. The material placed before the Court refers to the use of datar blows and to injuries caused during the occurrence. The CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution is also stated to depict the occurrence and the role of the accused. The medical evidence also assumes significance at this stage. The record reflects that injuries were suffered by the persons involved in the occurrence and that the injuries included those allegedly caused by sharp-edged as well as blunt weapons. Section 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, was subsequently added on account of the nature of the injury.

The argument regarding parity with co-accused Kashmir Singh also does not persuade this Court. The principle of parity cannot be applied to this case. The role attributed to each accused has to be examined in the factual backdrop of the case. The material noticed in the present matter attributes an active role and use of a weapon to the petitioner, whereas the role attributed to Kashmir Singh was stated to be materially different. Three datar blows have been attributed to petitioner, one of which is grievous injury. The order itself records that parity with Kashmir Singh was not available to the petitioner in view of the role attributed to him.

The contention regarding delay in registration of the FIR and the defence relating to the civil dispute are matters which may be examined appropriately during the course of trial. At the present stage, these aspects, particularly in the face of the material relied upon by the prosecution, do not persuade this Court to grant the concession of anticipatory bail. It is also relevant that the Court, while considering the prayer for bail, is not required to conduct a mini-trial. The material available at this stage has to be considered only for the limited purpose of determining whether the petitioner has made out a case for grant of the discretionary relief sought.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the specific role attributed to the petitioner, the allegation regarding use of datar blows, the injuries suffered by the injured persons, the CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution and the fact that the petitioner cannot claim parity with co-accused Kashmir Singh merely on account of his having been granted anticipatory bail, this Court is not inclined to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage.

Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.

It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the stage of trial.