AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.
Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.45 dated 21.04.2026 under Sections 109, 191(3), 190 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25, 27 Arms Act, Police Station Verowal, District Tarn Taran. This is the second petition for anticipatory bail. First petition was dismissed on 08.07.2026.
Complainant Jaswant Singh stated in his complaint to the police that on 21.04.2025 at about 1.00 PM, when he, his uncle Baldev Singh along with 5-7 other persons were harvesting wheat in the fields using a combine, Karanbir Singh arrived on a motorcycle with 4-5 unidentified persons in muffled faces. One of them was armed with a double-barrel rifle, while the others were carrying sticks and swords. They arrived on motorcycle and two Activas. Immediately after arrival, Karanbir Singh fired a direct shot at him from his handheld pistol with the intent to kill. He immediately ducked and the shot missed him. He attempted to fire again but the pistol did not work. Remaining unidentified individuals started extending threats and later fled with their respective weapons. Previously also, they had intercepted him on his way back from the fields while he was bring fodder and had assaulted him causing injuries. He remained admitted in Government Hospital, Miawind and was also medico-legally examined but did not initiate any criminal proceedings out of fear. The reason for the incident was an ongoing dispute regarding path between his land and the land of the assailants.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first petition for anticipatory bail was refused by this Court on 08.07.2026 observing that there was nothing to show that the injury suffered by family members of the petitioner were caused by the complainant side. He submits that after dismissal of the petition, on orders of this Court dated 23.07.2026 in CRM-M-40299-2026, police registered FIR No.97/2026 under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 91(3) and 190 BNS, PS Verowal, Tarn Taran on complaint of Tarsem Singh, connecting the MLRs brought on record with the incident dated 09.04.2026. Therefore, there was a substantial change in circumstances which entitled the petitioner to anticipatory bail.
Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail arguing that mere registration of cross FIR would not entitle the petitioner to the concession of anticipatory bail, given the nature of allegations and requirement of the prosecution for custodial interrogation of the petitioner for recovery of weapons of offence. He thus, prays for dismissal of the petition.
Although, an accused has the right to move successive applications for grant of bail, the reasons and the grounds on which the earlier bail application was rejected are to be considered and the Court is also required to examine what are the fresh grounds which may persuade it to take a different view from the one taken in the earlier bail application. Further, the Court is required to consider whether there is a substantial change in the circumstances to maintain second/successive bail petition.
First petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 08.07.2026 observing as under:-
Petitioner, in the wake of ongoing dispute regarding a passage, is alleged to have fired gun shot at the complainant with intention to kill him. Even if no injury was caused, the allegations are by no means trivial. There is nothing on record to show that injuries suffered by family members of the petitioner on 06.04.2026 and 09.04.2026 as reflected in the MLR P-3 to P-6, were caused by the complainant side. Considering the nature and substance of allegations, the role attributed to the petitioner, the fact that his custodial interrogation is required for eliciting useful information, effecting recoveries, it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The petition, being bereft of any merit, is hereby dismissed.
Even though an FIR against the complainant side has been registered on complaint of Tarsem Singh with regard to the same incident, that cannot be regarded as a change in circumstances, substantial enough to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail. Petitioner, who fired gunshot at the complainant with intention to kill, is required to be interrogated. The weapon of offence is yet to be recovered. His custodial interrogation is necessitated for effecting recoveries. While considering the prayer for anticipatory bail, the Court is required to consider overall nature of the offence, accusation against the accused, gravity of offence and the potential impact of granting pre-arrest bail protection. Grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, would not be justified as it may affect fair, proper and effective investigation. The gravity of allegations against the petitioner remains the same and investigating agency cannot be denied its right to custodial interrogation. The petition for anticipatory bail is accordingly, dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.