Nishan Singh vs State of Punjab

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.72 dated 15.04.2025, registered under Sections 118(2), 117(2), 115(2), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’), at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar Rural.

As per the allegations, the complainant-Kulwinder Singh along with his elder brother Satnam Singh was running a shop for installation of Dish TV and for sale, purchase and repair of mobile phones at Village Chhanna Road. On 08.03.2025, at about 11:00 a.m., when the complainant and his cousin Gurmej Singh were present at the shop, Kuldeep Singh, armed with a baseball bat, Nikka Singh, armed with a dang, the present petitioner-Nishan Singh, armed with a dattar, Paramjit Singh alias Pamma Singh, armed with a dang, Chetu, armed with a sota and Kulwant Kaur came to the shop. The petitioner raised a lalkara to catch hold of the complainant and teach him a lesson and thereafter gave a dattar blow to the complainant, which struck him on his left arm and elbow. When Gurmej Singh attempted to rescue the complainant, Kulwant Kaur and Chetu also caused injuries to him, while Kuldeep Singh gave a baseball bat blow to the complainant's mother. On arrival of Satnam Singh and other persons at the spot, the accused persons fled from there with their weapons. The injured were thereafter taken to Civil Hospital, Ajnala. It was alleged that the dispute had arisen on account of a quarrel a few days earlier regarding laying of stones and bricks on the road in front of the shop. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and the same are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail, which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide order dated 11.05.2026.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is a case of version and cross-version. The injury attributed to the petitioner is on a non-vital part of the body and that the actual dispute was between the complainant side and co-accused Kuldeep Singh, whereas the petitioner has been implicated on account of his relationship with the co-accused. It is further submitted that the cross-version also records injuries suffered by the accused party and, therefore, at this stage it cannot be determined as to which side was the aggressor. There is an unexplained delay of about 38 days in registration of the FIR. The petitioner has no other similar criminal case. Co-accused Chetan Singh @ Chetu has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court. On parity, the petitioner too deserves to be given the same benefit. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

Notice of motion.

Learned State counsel, who has advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter, has submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He has been specifically named in the FIR and a clear and specific overt act has been attributed to him. His custodial interrogation is required for conducting proper investigation in the matter. It is, thus, argued that the petitioner does not deserve the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

This Court has heard the rival submissions.

The allegations in the FIR specifically attribute a distinct role to the petitioner. He is alleged to have come to the spot armed with a dattar, raised a lalkara and thereafter himself inflicted injuries with dattar upon the complainant on his left arm and elbow, out of which, one injury has been declared as grievous. Thus, this is not a case where the petitioner has been implicated merely on account of his presence at the spot or by way of a general allegation. There is a specific overt act attributed to him with a weapon. The plea that the injury was caused on a non-vital part or that the matter is one of version and cross-version, cannot, at this stage, erode the specific allegations contained in the FIR. The plea of parity also does not persuade this Court. The entitlement to anticipatory bail has to be considered with reference to the specific role attributed to each accused. The petitioner is specifically alleged to have been armed with a dattar and to have caused an injury with the same. The fact that another co-accused might have been granted the concession of anticipatory bail, therefore, cannot by itself entitle the petitioner to the same relief. His custodial interrogation is required for conducting thorough and proper investigation in the matter. In case his custodial interrogation is denied to the investigating agency, the same will leave many glaring loopholes and gaps adversely affecting the investigation. The powers under Section 482 of BNSS are extraordinary and the same are to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. However, in the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.