Kuldeep Singh @ Gobinda vs State of Punjab

"1.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

2.

The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of 'Jaswinder Singh', hereinafter being referred to as "complainant" only. It was stated by the above named complainant that on 24.01.2026 he was at home and his mother had gone to bring his brother's son from school. According to complainant, on return, her mother told him that 'Kuldeep Singh alias Gobinda' (the petitioner herein), 'Manjit Kaur alias Gudo' and 'Rajwinder Kaur' had hurled abuses to her, and that she was beaten up also on the way. According to complainant at about 01:00 P.M. when the complainant along with his brother, namely 'Labh Singh' went to the house of petitioner to lodge his protest, they were assaulted by the petitioner, 'Jaswant Singh alias Haldar', 'Bir Singh', 'Prince', 'Dalbir Singh', 'Manjit Kaur alias Gudo' and 'Rajwinder Kaur' armed with 'Dattars' (sharp-edged weapon), 'Dalbir Singh alias Beera' armed with 'Sword' and three/four unknown persons armed with 'Dattars' and 'Baseball Bats'. The complainant further stated that the petitioner had exhorted to teach a lesson and inflicted two consecutive blows with 'Dattar' on the right side of his head. As per complainant one blow was from reverse side of 'Dattar' on right side of his head and another was from sharp side on the left side of his head.

3.

It is case of the prosecution that with regard to abovementioned incident formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with.

6.

Heard.

7.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that instant case is a case of version and cross-version, and that as per contents of FIR the opposite party was the aggressor. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party has already been afforded the benefit of anticipatory bail, and that the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner's and the opposite party were on similar footings.

8.

The learned State counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State counsel the injury, which has been declared to be grievous, has been attributed to the petitioner, and that it is on vital part of the body.

9.

The record has been perused carefully.

10.

A perusal of the record shows that there are several factors which are required to be taken into consideration at this stage. Those factors are:-

i)

that it is a case of version and cross-version;

ii) that the FIR at the instance of petitioner was lodged three days before the cross-version;

iii) that the offence is triable by the court of Judicial Magistrate;

iv) that the petitioner has clean antecedents;

v)

that the recovery of weapon can be facilitated by issuing a direction to the petitioner to join investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer;

vi) that investigation and trial of the case are not likely to be concluded in near future;

vii) that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

viii) that detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose;

ix) that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not likely to produce a fruitful result;

x)

that there is nothing on record to show that while on interim anticipatory bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and

xi) that there is nothing on record to show that while on interim anticipatory bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the investigation.

11.

Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, but without commenting anything on the merits of the case, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled to interim anticipatory bail.

12.

Thus, it is hereby ordered that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of arresting officer. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when notice is served upon him in writing, by the Investigating Officer. He shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS.

13.

Adjourned to 01.09.2026.

14.

To be listed in the urgent list.

15.

Let status report and detailed reply, if any, be filed by the State before the Registry, by next date."