Harwinder 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. 118 dated 05.07.2026 under Sections 109, 3(5) of BNS/Sections 307 and 34 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Mehta, District Amritsar Rural.

As per the FIR, on 05.07.2026 at about 1:00 p.m., the complainant and his neighbour were standing near a juice cart at Village Buttar Kalan when the petitioner-Harwinder Singh and co-accused Jodhbir Singh arrived in a car. The petitioner allegedly confronted and abused the complainant in connection with money owed to his friend Partap Singh. Thereafter, co-accused Jodhbir Singh allegedly fired 2–3 shots from a pistol, causing grievous firearm injuries to the legs of the complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that , even if the allegations contained in the FIR are taken at their face value, no specific overt act, weapon or injury has been attributed to the petitioner. The actual firing was allegedly done by co-accused Jodhbir Singh, who alone was stated to have taken out the pistol and fired at the complainant.

It is also contended that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he allegedly abused the complainant. There is no allegation that the petitioner himself fired any shot or possessed the weapon used in the occurrence, nor is any injury attributed to him. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was, in fact, not present at the place of occurrence. It is also contended that the more serious allegations relating to the use of the firearm are attributable to the co-accused and that the alleged weapon is required to be recovered from the co-accused. Therefore, no custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required, as nothing remains to be recovered from him.

Counsel for the petitioner also pleaded that petitioner is an Army Officer with a bright future and an established standing, making it unlikely that he would abscond or misuse the concession of anticipatory bail. He undertook to cooperate with the investigation, appear before the Investigating Officer whenever required and abide by any conditions imposed by the Court.

Notice of motion.

Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature.

The State contended that the occurrence involved the firing of a pistol upon the complainant, resulting in grievous injuries. The prosecution case, therefore, was not a case of a mere verbal altercation but involved the use of a firearm and an allegation of an attempt upon the life of the complainant.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records carefully.

At the stage of anticipatory bail, a meticulous appreciation of evidence is neither required nor permissible. The Court is primarily required to consider the nature and gravity of the allegations, the role attributed to the accused, the stage of investigation and the requirement of custodial interrogation. In the present case, the allegation is not merely of a verbal altercation. The petitioner is specifically alleged to have accompanied the co-accused to the place of occurrence and confronted the complainant immediately before the firearm assault. Thereafter, the co-accused allegedly fired 2–3 shots, causing grievous injuries to the complainant. The sequence of events requires proper investigation.

The mere fact that the actual firing is attributed to the co-accused does not, at this stage, completely disassociate the petitioner from the occurrence. The question whether the petitioner shared the requisite intention or knowledge or acted in concert with the co-accused is a matter which requires investigation and cannot be conclusively decided in proceedings for anticipatory bail. Moreover, the petitioner being a serving Army man was required to uphold the law and order. Allegations are that he came with co-accused, who was having a firearm and straightway countered the complainant and abused him. The weapon allegedly used in the occurrence is yet to be recovered and co-accused is yet to be arrested. The investigating agency is entitled to investigate the circumstances relating to the procurement, possession and use of the weapon and the respective roles of the accused.

The plea of alibi raised by the petitioner that he was present at his house with his father is a disputed question of fact. Such plea requires verification during trial and cannot be accepted merely on the assertion of the petitioner at the stage of consideration of anticipatory bail.

Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the presence of the petitioner with the co-accused immediately before the firearm assault, the fact that the weapon used in the occurrence is yet to be recovered, and the plea of alibi requiring investigation, this Court is not inclined to extend the extraordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are confined only to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The investigating agency shall conduct the investigation strictly in accordance with law.