Lakhwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL):-

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail in the FIR mentioned below:-

The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Amarjit Singh alleging that on the evening of 15.12.2024, he along with his son Sukhjit Singh and brother Gurmail Singh was standing on the road in front of his house when the accused Gurcharan Singh accompanied by the co-accused Jasvir Singh @ Jassa, Baljit Singh, Nirpal Singh, Narain Singh, Satwinder Singh and Lakhvir Singh reached there. All of them were armed with weapons. They opened an assault upon the complainant and his son by causing injuries to them. They had fallen down and raised hues and cries. Then accused Gurcharan Singh started firing shots with a rifle which he was carrying in his hand. The petitioner who was holding a pole axe accompanied by other accused and ten persons unknown to the complainant also assaulted them. They made exhortations and hurled abuses. On clamour being raised, some persons had reached at the spot and then the assailants fled from the spot. The complainant and his son were taken to the hospital but his son succumbed to the injuries.

After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Some co-accused were arrested. The petitioner was found to be innocent. He was not arrested and challaned and his name was kept in column No.2 of the challan report. As transpired from the record, during the course of trial, the complainant Amarjit was examined in chief as PW-1 and thereafter an application under Section 358 of BNSS was moved by the complainant which was allowed vide order dated 24.07.2026.

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala which has been dismissed vide order dated 14.09.2026.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. After conducting thorough investigation in the matter, he was found to be innocent and had not been arrested and challaned. His custodial interrogation is not required. Neither any recovery is to be effected from him. He is ready to join the proceedings before the trial Court. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

Notice of motion.

Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab has advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter. It is submitted by her that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be given benefit of bail.

This Court has considered the rival submissions.

The petitioner is alleged to be a member of an unlawful assembly formed with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object of that unlawful assembly is alleged to have assaulted the victims thereby causing death of son of the complainant. He was found to be innocent during investigation and has been summoned on allowing of application filed under Section 358 of BNSS. His custodial interrogation is not required nor any recovery is to be effected. As such, no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed subject to the petitioner’s appearing before the learned trial Court within a period of 15 days from today and furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to its satisfaction.

It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.