Varinder Kumar vs State of Punjab

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. (oral)

Petitioners seek anticipatory bail in case vide FIR No. 103 dated 12.06.2026, under Sections 117(2), 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 190 and 191(3) of BNS, Section 140(4) BNS, added later on, Police Station City Sangrur(1), District Sangrur, Punjab. Both petitions are first petitions for anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated. There was delay of 3 days in lodging the FIR. Allegations in the FIR were exaggerated. Petitioners were not even present at the time of the incident. The allegations against both of them were that they caused grievous injury to the complainant with iron rods. He further submits that petitioners who had no criminal record, were ready and willing to join investigation

Notice of motion.

Mr. Aakash Yadav, AAG Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of State and assisted by Ms. Shubreet Kaur, Advocate for complainant submits that complainant was kidnapped by both the petitioners in car of Harinder. Thereafter, he was taken to cremation ground where he was brutally assaulted. As many as 8 injuries were inflicted, out of which 4 were grievous. Both petitioners inflicted injuries with iron rods and caused grievous injuries to the complainant. There was a CCTV footage wherein the incident was captured. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners was required for recovery of the car used in the commission of offence and the weapons used. It was prayed that prayer for anticipatory bail be declined.

The complainant alleged that on 09.06.2026 at about 08:30 PM, an unknown person stopped him and his elder brother on the corner of the street and hit him on his nose. Mota son of unknown forced them into a car which Lucky was driving. He was hit and punched by Mota and taken to the cremation ground 10 kms away whereafter he was brutally assaulted by Lucky, Mota, Bunty Bania and Mithu Baba. He was again brought back to Prem Basti, Sangrur where he was hit with iron rod by Lucky Sharma and unknown persons who threatened to kill him and recorded a video of him saying that he had broken into their house forcefully in the night to attack their women.

The benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of course or routine. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court is required to balance the right of the prosecution for free, fair and unhindered investigation as also personal liberty of the accused and interest of the society. 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.

Allegations against the petitioners are grave, serious and specific. Their custodial interrogation is required for effecting recoveries. There are no extra ordinary circumstances made out to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail at this stage will not advance the course of justice and would amount to undue interference in the statutory investigational powers of the police.

Dismissed.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case.