Ram Kumar vs State Of Punjab & Ors.

Shalini Singh Nagpal, J (Oral)

Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case vide FIR No.138 dated 11.06.2026, under Sections 109, 118(1), 126(2), 351(3), 191(3) and 190 BNS, Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala. Section 103 BNS was added in the FIR during investigation. This is the first application for anticipatory bail.

It is alleged that on 08.06.2026 at about 8:30 p.m. when complainant-Neelam and her son Heera were walking outside their house after dinner and reached near the house of Guddi, Kalu son of Banarsi Lal armed with datar, Balvir @ Bira armed with kirpan, Dimple son of Ramesh armed with iron rod, Guddi wife of Ramesh and Ram son of Matti, Deepu son of Shori, surrounded them. Guddi raised lalkara upon which Ram (petitioner) and Deepu caught her son by his arms from behind, whereupon Dimple with the intention to kill him, gave an iron rod blow on his head which fractured his head. He fell down. Kalu and Balbir then caught her son by his legs and dragged him. When they raised cries, people collected and the assailants fled from the spot.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was delay of 3 days in registration of the FIR. Fatal injury on head of the deceased with iron rod was attributed to co-accused Dimple. Petitioner had been falsely involved only to implicate all members of the family. He further argued that the only role attributed to the petitioner was that he held the deceased by his arms. Co-accused Janak Rani and Deepak had already been allowed anticipatory bail and Balbir @ Beera was granted regular bail, by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala. Therefore, petitioner too deserved the concession of anticipatory bail on parity.

Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail arguing that specific role was attributed to the petitioner, who allegedly caught the deceased from behind to facilitate assault on his head by co-accused. He further submits that co-accused were granted anticipatory bail when the offence under Section 103 BNS was not added. Role attributed to the petitioner did not entitle him to the concession of bail.

The benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of course or routine. 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. Petitioner is accused of committing murder of Heera. It is alleged that he caught the deceased from behind and facilitated co-accused to give the fatal blow on his head. Allegations are serious and there is no exceptional ground made out to extend the concession of anticipatory bail.

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.