Mandeep Singh vs State Of Punjab

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. (oral)

Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.245 dated 13.08.2026, under Sections 115(2), 118(1) and 3(1) of BNS, Police Station City Sri Muktsar Sahib, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. This is the first petition for anticipatory bail.

It is alleged that on 08.08.2026, complainant along with one Jagbir Singh reached Nishan Tyre shop in Sri Muktsar Sahib city by bus to enquire about the rate for his motor-cycle. Petitioner also reached the spot. A scuffle ensued when petitioner told complainant that it was because of him that a Panchayat was convened against him regarding sending Dharampreet Singh abroad. Petitioner then took out a kappa and hit the complainant on his head. Unknown persons arrived at the spot. Then Jagbir Singh punched him on left eye. Mandeep again hit him with reverse side of kappa on his left

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all injuries allegedly caused to the complainant were simple in nature. He further submits that co-accused Gurjeevan Singh @ Jiwan against whom similar allegations were levelled was allowed anticipatory bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib and petitioner, who had clean antecedents, too was entitled to concession of anticipatory bail, being ready and willing to join investigation.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG Punjab, who is present in the Court accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail arguing that the injury inflicted by the petitioner was with a ‘kappa’ (sword). The injured suffered incised wound, 7 cm x .4 cm deep on his scalp. Recovery of ‘kappa’ was yet to be effected from petitioner, who was the main accused. Thus, he was not entitled to concession of anticipatory bail.

The benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of course or routine. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court is required to balance the right of the prosecution for free, fair and unhindered investigation as also personal liberty of the accused and interest of the society. Role attributed to the accused is required to be considered with great care and caution. Anticipatory bail being an extra-ordinary remedy is to be granted only in exceptional circumstances, where the Court is prima facie of the view that the accused has been falsely involved in the crime.

Allegations against the petitioner are specific. He has been attributed head injury to the complainant. He is the main accused, whose custodial interrogation is required to effect recoveries. There are no extra ordinary circumstances made out to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail, at this stage, will amount to undue interference in the statutory investigational powers of the police, which is not permissible.

Dismissed.

Nothing observed hereinabove shall be taken as an expression of opinion on merits of the case.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.