AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) (earlier Section 438 of Cr. P.C.) seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.082 dated 13.07.2026, under Sections 118(1)/ 115(2)/ 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Lakhewali, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
As per factual matrix of the case in hand as stated in the order passed by the concerned Sessions Court while declining the bail plea of the petitioner, the petitioner had assaulted the injured by giving him fist blows. The petitioner inflicted a kirch blow on the left side of the injured’s neck and, subsequently, attempted to give another kirch blow, which landed on the injured’s right arm when he raised his arm to protect himself.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are wholly concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has argued that there is an unexplained delay of 07 days in lodging the FIR, inasmuch as the incident occurred on 06.07.2026, whereas, the FIR was lodged on 13.07.2026, which casts doubt on the prosecution version. Learned counsel has argued that in fact there is a dispute between the complainant – side and co-accused – Satnam Singh and the petitioner has unnecessarily been implicated in this case. It has been submitted that the injuries attributed to the petitioner are simple in nature.
Learned counsel has further contended that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and to cooperate with the investigating agency as and when required. It has been contended that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind bars. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner has been entreated for.
Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner in the FIR. Learned State counsel has further contended that the petitioner along with his co-accused assaulted the injured and caused him injuries.
It has further been argued that considering the seriousness of the allegations, there exists a reasonable apprehension that the petitioner, if granted the concession of anticipatory bail, may abscond from the process of justice as also tamper with the prosecution evidence/ witnesses. Learned State counsel has also submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the purpose of conducting an effective and fair investigation. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned State counsel has prayed that the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.
As per the prosecution case, and upon a perusal of the record as well as the order passed by the Court below, it prima facie emerges that serious allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner. It is borne out from the prosecution case that the petitioner, upon reaching the spot, initially assaulted the injured with fist blows and thereafter, in furtherance of the assault, inflicted a kirch blow on the left side of the injured’s neck. He further attempted to give another kirch blow, which landed on the right forearm of the injured. Perusal of the prosecution case further reveals that the medical evidence substantially corroborates the ocular version, as the MLR records a superficial incised wound on the left side of the neck, which has been opined to be caused by a sharp weapon, besides an injury on the right forearm. At this stage, the specific attribution of the assault to the petitioner, coupled with the medical corroboration, weighs against extending the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail.
No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR.
It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation appear to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6)
“6.We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.”
Keeping in view of the seriousness of the allegations, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.