AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)
The present is the first petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), seeking the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 0123 dated 07.12.2025 (Annexure P-1), registered under Sections 109, 117(2), 115(2), 333, 331(6), 331(7), 191(3), 351(2) and 351(3) of the BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 307, 325, 323, 452, 458, 459, 148 and 506 of the IPC) at Police Station Nandgarh, Bathinda, District Bathinda, Punjab.
The FIR was registered on the complaint of Mander Singh, alleging that on 07.12.2024 at about 8.00 p.m., while he was present in his house with his family, the accused forcibly entered the premises. The petitioner was allegedly armed with a stick, while the co-accused carried gandasa, small sword and sticks. Navi Singh and Babu Singh allegedly inflicted sword blows on the complainant’s head with an alleged intention to cause his death. The accused thereafter fled upon the arrival of persons at the spot and extended threats to the complainant. The complainant was admitted to the hospital and, as per the medical record subsequently received, injuries Nos.1 to 3 were opined to be grievous in nature. The alleged occurrence arose from the marriage of the sister of accused Jony with the complainant’s son, against the wishes of her brother. The FIR was registered pursuant to directions issued by the Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that no specific overt act or injury has been attributed to him. It is submitted that the petitioner is alleged only to have raised a lalkara and was not armed with any deadly weapon nor alleged to have caused any injury to the complainant. The grievous injuries forming the basis of the prosecution case are attributed to the co-accused. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has deep roots in society, his custodial interrogation is neither warranted nor likely to advance the investigation, and his arrest would serve no meaningful investigative purpose. It is accordingly argued that the petitioner deserves the concession of anticipatory bail, subject to such conditions as may be deemed appropriate by this Court, and the present petition may kindly be allowed.
Notice of motion.
Upon advance notice, Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, accepts notice on behalf of the State of Punjab and vehemently opposes the present petition. It is submitted that the allegations forming the substratum of the FIR are serious in nature and that the petitioner cannot claim the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail merely on the assertion that no specific injury has been attributed to him. Learned State counsel contends that the role ascribed to the petitioner, including his alleged participation in the occurrence and raising of lalkara, has to be appreciated in the backdrop of the allegations against the entire accused party. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed after due consideration of the material available on record and suffers from neither any illegality nor any material infirmity warranting interference by this Court. It is, accordingly, prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
Having considered the rival submissions and the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner does not merit the concession of anticipatory bail at this stage. The medical record discloses that the complainant sustained serious head injuries, including an extra-axial hematoma in the left frontoparietotemporal region measuring 12 mm in width, haemorrhagic contusions in the left frontal and temporal lobes, a comminuted displaced fracture of the right frontal sinus and bilateral frontal bones, besides a midline shift of 4 mm. The injuries have been opined to be grievous and life-threatening.
The prosecution case further attributes a specific role to the petitioner, alleging that he accompanied the co-accused to the complainant's residence while armed with an iron chain (garari) and raised a lalkara, exhorting the co-accused to inflict injuries. The alleged occurrence is stated to have its genesis in the marriage of the petitioner's sister with the complainant's son, which was allegedly solemnized against the petitioner's wishes. Thus, the motive attributed to the occurrence, coupled with the nature and severity of the injuries sustained by the complainant and the alleged participation of the petitioner in the occurrence, constitutes material circumstances militating against grant of the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail.
In the totality of the facts and circumstances, particularly the seriousness of the injuries, the nature of the allegations and the role attributed to the petitioner, this Court is not persuaded to extend the extraordinary protection of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is dismissed.
In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are called for in respect of such applications, the same having been rendered infructuous in consequence of the present adjudication.