AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)SUMEET GOEL
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 438 Cr. P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.0141 dated 24.08.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 115(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Sri Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar.
For the sake of ease, relevant factual milieu is drawn from the order dated 08.09.2026 passed by the concerned learned Sessions Judge (whereby anticipatory bail plea of the petitioner was rejected), reads thus:
“4.Instant case was registered against the applicants/accused on the statement of complainant Jasvir Kaur in which she has stated that on 15.08.2026 at about 5:00 PM when she was cooking food in her house, her brother-in-law applicant/accused Jaswinder Singh who was armed with Daat, applicant/accused Sarabjit Kaur wife of Jaswinder Singh armed with Danda and applicant/accused Taranpreet Kaur armed with Danda along with their co-accused, Baljit Kaur wife of Sewa Singh, Sewa Singh son of Kikar Singh resident of village Fasso, Lakhi son of Sri Ram r/o Sarangpur, Narinder Dass son of Surjit Dass, Gurdeep Singh Foji along with two other unknown persons came into her house. Applicant/accused Jaswinder Singh who was armed with Daat, gave Daat blow on the person of complainant Jasvir Kaur which hit on the right hand of complainant Jasvir Kaur due to that blow the little finger of complainant was cut off/chopped. Applicants/accused Taranpreet Kaur and Sarabjit Singh gave danda blows on the back of complainant Jasvir Kaur. Thereafter, complainant Jasvir Kaur fell on the ground. On raising raula, son of complainant Jasvir Singh namely Lovepreet Singh and daughter-in-law Jasvir Kaur came at the spot and rescued the complainant from the clutches of the applicants/accused. Thereafter, complainant was got admitted in Civil Hospital Chamkaur Sahib for treatment.”
Learned counsel has submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are wholly concocted, improbable and devoid of any merits. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the FIR in question on account of civil dispute over agricultural land. It has further been contended that the husband of the petitioner had earlier approached this Court seeking directions for deciding his complaint against Paramjit Singh (husband of the complainant); consequently, by way of a counter-blast and retaliatory measure, the FIR in question has been registered against the petitioner by concocting and fabricating the alleged incident. Learned counsel has further submitted that the injury, allegedly caused with a sharp-edged weapon, has been attributed to the co-accused of the petitioner, whereas the petitioner has been assigned only the role of inflicting simple danda blows on the arms of the complainant.
Learned counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation. It has been urged that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, grant of the instant petition is prayed for.
Learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned State counsel has argued that the petitioner, along with his co-accused, entered the house of the complainant and inflicted serious injuries upon her, resulting in the amputation of her little finger. It has been further argued that investigation, in the present case, is still under way and the petitioner is yet to be arrested. Given the nature of allegations, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable. It has been contended that, in case, the petitioner is accorded the concession of anticipatory bail, there is all likelihood that she may abscond from the process of justice as also influence/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses. Thus, the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable 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, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. A perusal of the prosecution case, as well as the material available on record, prima facie, reveals that the petitioner, along with her co-accused, entered the house of the complainant. Co-accused – Jaswinder Singh allegedly inflicted a blow with a daat (sharp-edged weapon), as a result whereof the little finger of the complainant was chopped off. The petitioner, along with her co-accused – Taranpreet Kaur, allegedly inflicted danda blows on the back of the complainant, causing her to fall to the ground. Though the sharp-edged injury resulting in amputation of the complainant’s little finger has been attributed to co-accused – Jaswinder Singh, the role of the petitioner cannot be viewed in isolation and has to be assessed cumulatively in the backdrop of the occurrence as a whole. The material on record, prima facie, indicates the participation of the petitioner in the assault which ultimately resulted in the complainant sustaining grievous injuries, including amputation of her little finger. Keeping in view the factual milieu of the case in hand; particularly the manner in which the petitioner and her co-accused allegedly entered the house of the complainant and caused grievous injuries to her, resulting in amputation of her little finger; this Court, prima facie, finds that the petitioner does not deserve the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail.
The other pleas raised by the petitioner, including those of false implication etc., are matters to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence during the course of trial. Such disputed questions of fact(s) cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of consideration of the petitioner’s prayer for 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 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 wider 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 a prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and the preliminary investigation appear to establish 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. A profitable reference in this regard is being made to the dicta passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039, the Supreme Court held as under, relevant whereof reads as under:
“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.”
The material which has come on record, the preliminary investigation and the nature of offence & seriousness of the allegations, appear to establish a reasonable basis for their accusation. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu 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 dismisseddismissed.
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.