AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This petition for pre-arrest bail, is the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of 'the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023'. This petition has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.81 dated 23.05.2026, Police Station Sirhali, District Tarn Taran, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Briefly stating the facts emerging from the record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of 'Harpreet Singh', hereinafter being referred to as complainant only. According to complainant on 23.05.2026 he had gone to his diary for milching the cattle, and that while returning home, he found that 'Surjit Singh' (the petitioner herein) had taken his father in his grip and his wife 'Harjit Kaur' was inflicting a blow on the head of his father, with a wooden handle. According to complainant, on account of above-mentioned injury, his father fell down on the ground, and thereafter, 'Surjit Singh' thrashed him with kicks. As per complainant, in the meantime his mother 'Veer Kaur' came on the spot raised alarm, and thereafter, assailants ran away from the spot. It was further stated by the complainant that thereafter, he shifted his father to the hospital, but he passed away due to injuries.
It is case of the prosecution that in view of above-mentioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.
Notice of motion.
Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with.
Heard.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the version put-forth by the petitioner with regard to causing injury on the person of his father is unnatural and unable to convince a prudent mind.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that otherwise also the injury on the person of his father, which proved to be fatal, has not been attributed to the petitioner. It has also been contended on behalf of petitioner that nothing has to be recovered from the possession of petitioner, and that the petitioner has clean antecedents. In view of above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for the benefit of pre-arrest bail for the petitioner.
The learned State counsel has controverted the above-mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel in the present case there are very specific allegations against the petitioner that he alongwith his wife (co-accused) had facilitated the fatal blow on the head of the father of complainant. According to learned State counsel in order to fix role of the petitioner in the commission of crime, and also in view of gravity of offence, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail.
The record has been perused carefully.
As far as the facts and circumstances of the present case are concerned, following are the relevant aspects which are necessary to be taken into consideration:-
that the allegations against the petitioner are quite specific and categorical qua the fact that he had facilitated fatal blow on the head of deceased by taking hand of the deceased in his grip, which allowed the co-accused to inflict injury on the head of the victim. The above-said injury proved to be fatal;
that the investigation in the present case is still at initial stage and facts have not yet taken a proper shape. Thus, at this stage, if opportunity of custodial interrogation of petitioner is denied to the Investigating Agency, it may adversely affect the outcome of investigation;
that the gravity of offence allegedly committed by the petitioner is also relevant as serious injury which led to death of victim was facilitated by the petitioner;
that right of custodial interrogation of a suspect is a valuable right of Investigating Agency and as per settled principles of law in ordinary circumstances, such right should not be curtailed. The facts and circumstances of the present case are such that if right of custodial interrogation is denied to the Investigating Agency, it may result into miscarriage of justice.
It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has approached this Court for the concession of anticipatory bail, and it is settled principle of law that the above-mentioned concession is a discretion to be exercised by the Court in a judicious manner. With regard to circumstances in which the above-mentioned discretion should be exercised, the guidelines have been prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in various judicial pronouncements. In this regard in the case of 'Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282', it has been observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is a rule.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the abovementioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation.
Similarly, in the case of 'Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024', the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence.
In the case of 'Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab 1980 SCC (2) 565', the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that:-
The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only.
In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail.
Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be exercised.
Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and circumstances of the instant case, and the principles of law in the cases referred above, it is hereby observed that in the present case the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of pre-arrest bail, and the present petition, being devoid of merits, deserves dismissal. The same is hereby dismissed, accordingly.