Preetinder Singh vs State Of Punjab

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

The present petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.191 dated 04.08.2026 under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(3), 3(5), 132 and 221 of the BNS, 2023/Sections 323, 341, 506, 34, 353, 186 of IPC registered at Police Station Badali Ala Singh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

Briefly, the FIR came to be registered on the basis of the statement of Sukhwinder Singh, a Panchayat member of village Rampur. As per the prosecution, certain persons had allegedly encroached upon the village pond. The Panchayat had approached the BDPO Office, Khera, and the concerned administration had reached the spot for removal of the alleged illegal encroachment/construction. It is alleged that on 04.08.2026, at about 3.00 P.M., when the administration started demolition/removal of the alleged illegal construction raised at the village pond, the petitioner, along with his father Nahar Singh, obstructed the official proceedings. The petitioner is specifically alleged to have given fist blows to the complainant on his jaw and lips and thereafter picked up a stone and threw the same towards him. When the complainant attempted to save himself, the stone struck his left hand. Another stone was allegedly thrown by the petitioner which hit the complainant on his left shoulder.

It is further alleged that Nahar Singh caught hold of the Sarpanch, Davinder Singh, dragged him towards the street, gave him beatings and threatened and abused him. It is also the prosecution case that Nahar Singh had called certain other persons to the spot, who could be identified by the complainant, and that the accused persons obstructed the work being carried out by the administration and prevented the officials from removing the alleged illegal construction. The injured persons were taken to CHC Khera for medical examination and treatment. The MLR of the injured Nahar Singh was also prepared and he was referred to GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh, whereas injuries on the complainant were also medically recorded. The FIR thereafter came to be registered against the petitioner and his co-accused.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated on account of an existing civil dispute between his father and Davinder Singh, Sarpanch of village Rampur. It is contended that the FIR is a counterblast to the said civil litigation and has been lodged with a view to pressurise the petitioner's family.

It is further submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offences. It is also submitted that the injuries attributed to the petitioner are simple in nature and there is no specific injury which can be said to have been caused by him. It is argued that, in fact, the petitioner's father himself sustained injuries during the occurrence and was referred to GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh, which demonstrates that the occurrence was not one-sided.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that there is a dispute regarding the very existence and nature of the alleged village pond and the alleged illegal encroachment/construction. It is contended that the petitioner's father has a residential house at the relevant place and other residential houses of villagers are also situated in the vicinity. Learned counsel further submits that no recovery is required from the petitioner; the entire occurrence is already within the knowledge of the Investigating Agency; the witnesses are identifiable and the relevant material is already available. The petitioner is stated to be ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that the petitioner's father, who was also allegedly involved in the same occurrence, has already been granted protection by this Court, and therefore the petitioner also deserves the concession of anticipatory bail on the principle of parity.

Notice of motion.

Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State.

Learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and are supported by the statement of the complainant as well as the medical material collected during investigation.

It is submitted that the petitioner is specifically alleged to have assaulted the complainant by giving fist blows and by throwing stones at him. It is further submitted that the petitioner, along with his father, obstructed the proceedings being carried out by the administration and that other persons, including persons wearing Nihang attire and allegedly carrying sharp-edged weapons, were called to the spot to restrain the public servants and Panchayat officials from carrying out the official proceedings. These circumstances demonstrate that the allegations are not confined to a simple dispute between private individuals but concern obstruction of public servants in the discharge of their official duties.

Learned State counsel further submits that the defence sought to be raised by the petitioner regarding the civil dispute, the alleged encroachment and the injuries sustained by his father are matters which cannot be conclusively adjudicated upon at the stage of consideration of anticipatory bail. The existence of a civil dispute, by itself, does not efface the criminal allegations arising out of the incident.

I have perused the file and gone through the records carefully.

The case of the present petitioner cannot be considered on the ground of parity with his father. The role attributed to the petitioner is distinct and specific, inasmuch as he is alleged to have himself inflicted blows upon the complainant/public servant while he was discharging his official duties, and that too in full public view during the course of official proceedings being carried out by the administration.

The alleged conduct of the petitioner, therefore, cannot be viewed merely as a private dispute between the parties, particularly when the incident is stated to have occurred in the course of official proceedings and involved alleged use of force against a public servant in the discharge of his duties. Such acts, if permitted to go unchecked, may encourage a sense of lawlessness.

The grant of anticipatory bail in such circumstances, particularly when a specific role of assault and obstruction during official proceedings has been attributed to the petitioner, may also convey a wrong message to the society regarding the consequences of interfering with public servants in the discharge of their official duties. The Court, while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction, is therefore required to take into consideration not only the individual circumstances of the accused but also the nature and circumstances of the alleged occurrence.

Accordingly, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of parity with his father merely on the ground that his father has been granted bail, particularly when no similar allegation of inflicting blows upon the public servant while discharging his official duties in full public view is attributed to the father. In view of the specific role attributed to the present petitioner and the circumstances in which the alleged occurrence took place, this Court is not inclined to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to him.

Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.

It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the stage of trial.