AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)
The present set of two petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner(s), in case, FIR No. 112 dated 04.07.2026 under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 127(1), 190, 191(3), 351(2) of BNS, 2023 (erstwhile Sections 323, 324, 341, 340, 149, 148 and 506 IPC) registered at Police Station Sadar Raikot, District Ludhiana Rural.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the entire dispute revolves around 02 acres of land which had been taken by the petitioner-Jagdev Singh on lease by paying huge amount from the father of the complainant and in fact, the father of the complainant had also submitted a complaint against the present complainant alleging that he forcibly and illegally demanding more money from the petitioner(s) and in fact, no such incident as alleged in the FIR ever occurred. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the injuries are self-inflicted and more so, simple in nature, as there was no occasion for the petitioner(s) to entangle into such brawl when they all belong to same family i.e. the father of the complainant, happens to be the uncle of the petitioner-Jagdev Singh and brother of petitioner-Gurmel Singh.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that there is an unexplained and inordinate delay of 09 days in lodging the FIR and more so, the other two accused already stands arrested. It is further submitted that all the injuries are simple in nature and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner(s) is not required.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length.
As regards the existence of civil dispute between the parties is concerned, then they are at liberty to take their appropriate remedies, however, as per the FIR, there are specific and clear cut allegations against the petitioner-Jagdev Singh, who gave a spade blow towards the head of the complainant and in order to protect his head, when the complainant raised his arm, the said spade struck on the wrist of his left arm.
Further, specific allegations have also been levelled against the petitioner-Gurmel Singh with regard to infliction of injuries on the right hand of the complainant which are duly supported by the medical evidence as well. It is a specific case of the complainant that after inflicting such injuries, the petitioner(s) locked him in the motor room for a while and released him thereafter, whereby, he called police helpline number on 112, and thereafter, he was taken to the hospital.
Therefore, considering the gravity of the specific allegations and the fact that the weapon is yet to be recovered for which, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner(s) assumes significant importance at this stage, to ensure that the investigation in this case comes to its logical end, especially in view of the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “CBI v. Anil Sharma”, (1997) 7 SCC 187, wherein it has been held as under:
“We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation orientated 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 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 would not conduct themselves as offenders.”
In light of the above, this Court does not find any ground to grant the extra-ordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner(s), hence, the present petitions are dismissed.
It is made clear that any observation made in this order is only for the purpose of deciding the present petitions and shall not be considered as any expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
10 Pending application(s) if any, shall stand disposed of.
Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case.