Sarabjit Singh @ Sabhi vs State of Punjab and another

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

The present second petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.269 dated 08.11.2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 324, 148, 149 of IPC and Sections 326 and 201 IPC (added later on vide DDR No.25 dated 23.12.2023) at Police Station Model Town, Hoshiarpur.

The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail before the coordinate Bench of this Court which was dismissed on 02.02.2026 after examining the fact that despite being given various opportunities, the petitioner has failed to join the investigation.

Thereafter, the present petition i.e. the second petition for grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail has been preferred by the petitioner on 27.08.2026.

The prosecution case, as emerging from the FIR, is that on 05.11.2023 at about 8:30 a.m., the complainant –– Gurdeep Singh alias Gagan, along with his brother Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha, was going on foot towards Naloyian Chowk. When they reached near the house of Kuldeep Singh, accused persons, namely Sunny Kumar, Paramjit Singh @ Pamma, Mani, Bittu, Sabhi and Vicky, along with some unknown persons, allegedly ambushed them. Accused – Harpreet Kaur @ Mano was also stated to be present on the roof of her house with bricks in her hands. As per the complainant, Kuldeep Singh raised a lalkara and inflicted a datar blow on the brother of the complainant namely Sukhwinder Singh with an intention to kill him, which hit on his head. Accused - Sunny Kumar is alleged to have thereafter inflicted another datar blow on the head of Sukhwinder Singh. When the complainant tried to intervene and rescue his brother, accused – Paramjit Singh allegedly gave a khanda blow on the back of his head whereas accused – Sunny Kumar allegedly gave a datar blow on his neck. Thereafter, the complainant and his brother became unconscious and fell on the ground. It has been further alleged that Bittu, Sabhi and Vicky caused injuries to the complainant and his brother with the reverse side of their respective weapon(s) and also gave kick blows. The complainant has further stated that, upon regaining consciousness, he saw accused – Harpreet Kaur causing a brick-bat injury to his shoulder. On raising alarm, several persons gathered at the spot and thereafter the assailants fled from the scene of occurrence. The injured were thereafter taken to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, and, owing to the serious condition of Sukhwinder Singh, he was referred to Aman Hospital, Hoshiarpur.

As far as the role of the present petitioner is concerned, the specific allegation against him is that the petitioner along with co-accused Bittu and Vicky had caused injuries to the complainant and his brother, after they had fallen unconscious, with the reverse side of their respective weapons and also gave kick blows.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question and the allegations levelled in the FIR are fabricated and motivated. Learned counsel has further iterated that the injuries attributed to the petitioner are simple in nature and that there is no independent material connecting him with the occurrence. Learned counsel has relied upon the compromise allegedly effected between the parties on 04.01.2024 (copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure P-2 with the present petition) and submitted that the complainant has no objection against the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It has been further contended that some of the co-accused have already been granted the concession of bail by this Court/trial Court and, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to similar relief. According to learned counsel, the challan has already been presented against some of the co-accused and, therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted in the factual milieu of the case in hand. Learned counsel has emphasized that earlier the petitioner had not been able to join the investigation on account of subsequent addition of Sections 326 and 201 of IPC. Learned counsel has asserted that the failure to join the investigation earlier on the part of petitioner was neither deliberate nor intended to evade the process of law. Moreover, the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation now and there is no likelihood of him absconding from the process of justice. On strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

In oppugnation, learned State counsel (on the strength of advance notice) has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the present petition is not maintainable, as it constitutes a second petition for grant of anticipatory bail, without there being any substantial change in circumstances, thereby failing both on procedural grounds and on merits thereof. Learned State counsel has submitted that the earlier petition was dismissed by coordinate Bench of this Court on 02.02.2026 primarily on account of the failure of the petitioner to join the investigation. Furthermore, despite having complete knowledge of the ongoing criminal proceedings and the order passed by this Court, the petitioner has not submitted himself to the process of law till now. Accordingly, the State counsel has argued that the instant petition deserves dismissal on this score alone. On merits, learned State counsel has iterated that allegations against the petitioner are specific and serious and the subsequent addition of Sections 326 and 201 IPC cannot, by itself, constitute a ground for grant of anticipatory bail particularly when the petitioner has admittedly not joined the investigation. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the instant petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.

It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in a titled as Bhisham Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2024(3) RCR(Criminal) 65, relevant whereof reads as under:-

Indubitably, the first petition (for grant of anticipatory bail) preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 02.02.2026 after considering the fact that despite being given several opportunities, the petitioner has failed to join the investigation. Thereafter, in the instant petition i.e. second petition (for grant of anticipatory bail), the petitioner has reiterated the grounds previously taken (at the time of rejection of the first petition on 02.02.2026). The main ground urged by the petitioner to constitute a material change in circumstance(s) is that the petitioner was under a misconception or apprehension of arrest on account of addition of Sections 326 and 201 of IPC later on after the grant of concession of pre-arrest bail. However, this Court is of the opinion that the said contention does not merit acceptance at this stage, which would warrant reconsideration of the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. The fact that Sections 326 and 201 IPC were added in the course of investigation does not, in the facts of the present case, furnish a ground in favour of the petitioner for grant of the present petition. The contention regarding the compromise between the parties also does not persuade this Court to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, the alleged compromise may be a relevant factor which can be considered at an appropriate stage and in appropriate proceedings but the same cannot wipe out the fact that the petitioner has not cooperated with the investigation and has not submitted himself to the process of law. The plea of parity with co-accused who have been granted bail is also not tenable. The co-accused have been granted the concession of regular bail whereas the petitioner seeks the concession of anticipatory bail which stands on a different footing. Each case must be evaluated on its own facts and the nature and role of each accused is to be independently assessed. Accordingly, the petitioner cannot claim parity with the co-accused as the principle of parity is not an absolute right and depends upon the conduct and circumstances of each accused.

There is no substantial change nay any change in circumstances which may weigh, in favour of entertaining the instant second petition for anticipatory bail. Ergo, the instant petition deserves dismissal on this score alone. Moreover, the prolonged evasion of the petitioner from the process of law weighs heavily against the exercise of discretion in his favour under the provisions governing anticipatory bail. Furthermore, the first petition was dismissed on 02.02.2026 and the instant petition has been preferred after a gap of approximately 06 months. It is evident that the petitioner has deliberately evaded the process of law for about 06 months. The conduct of the petitioner in avoiding arrest for such a prolonged period without any reasonable cause must be considered while adjudicating this second petition. The process of justice is meant to treat every individual in a manner which is equitable and fair. However; if the petitioner-accused chooses to employ irregular and convoluted tactics, including undue delay, strategically aimed at frustrating lawful proceedings/investigation, it is tantamount to an abuse of the process of justice. While liberty and dignity of an individual must be held high, however, no one can be permitted to subvert and cause devolution in the process of justice. Protracted absence, eluding the process of law and abrupt repetition of pleas for pre-arrest bail, in absence of convincing reason(s) is certainly not an act/behaviour which calls for sympathy/indulgence of the Court. The hiatus of about 06 months on part of the petitioner (herein) is inexplicable nay contumacious. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner when examined in the backdrop of the nature/severity of allegations made against the petitioner, disentitles him for grant of anticipatory bail.

Furthermore, no fresh substantial change in circumstances has been brought forward which would indicate that the petitioner is entitled to maintain his second petition for grant of anticipatory bail. All the grounds urged by the petitioner in the present petition have already been considered & decided and view thereupon has been taken by this Court vide judgment dated 02.02.2026. From the entire factual conspectus brought forward in the present petition, no fresh ground or circumstance is made out so as to enable the petitioner to file and maintain the second anticipatory bail petition.

In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus:

The petition in hand is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.

Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on merits of the case and the investigating agency as also the trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced with this order.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.