CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 112 Kamaljit Singh State of Punjab Date of decision: Date of Uploading : CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of No.38 dated Sections 115(2), Nakodar, District Jalandhar. 2. been registered on the statement of complainant namely who alleged that on Sarpanch Rupinder Singh was present near Nakodar Bus Stand, the Kamaljit Singh (petitioner herein) with a sickle the petitioner complainant and inflicted multiple blows aimed at body. The complainant, in an attempt to -24954-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Kamaljit Singh V/s State of Punjab Date of decision: 04.05.2026 Date of Uploading : 04.05.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Harshdeep Singh Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR dated 27.04.2025, registered for the offences punishable under 115(2), 118(1), 351(3), 118(2), 109 of BNS, 2023 at Police Station Nakodar, District Jalandhar. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that the FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant namely who alleged that on 26.04.2025 at about 3:30 PM, while he along with Sarpanch Rupinder Singh was present near Nakodar Bus Stand, the Kamaljit (petitioner herein) arrived at the spot in a black Scorpio vehicle armed with a sickle-shaped sharp-edged weapon. It the petitioner, without provocation, had complainant and inflicted multiple blows aimed at body. The complainant, in an attempt to 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-24954-2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR , registered for the offences punishable under 118(1), 351(3), 118(2), 109 of BNS, 2023 at Police Station The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that the FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant namely Bhupinder Singh, 26.04.2025 at about 3:30 PM, while he along with Sarpanch Rupinder Singh was present near Nakodar Bus Stand, the Kamaljit arrived at the spot in a black Scorpio vehicle armed edged weapon. It has been further alleged that had launched an attack upon the complainant and inflicted multiple blows aimed at the vital parts of his body. The complainant, in an attempt to save himself, sustained injuries on 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR , registered for the offences punishable under 118(1), 351(3), 118(2), 109 of BNS, 2023 at Police Station The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that the FIR has Bhupinder Singh, 26.04.2025 at about 3:30 PM, while he along with Sarpanch Rupinder Singh was present near Nakodar Bus Stand, the Kamaljit arrived at the spot in a black Scorpio vehicle armed alleged that launched an attack upon the vital parts of his himself, sustained injuries on AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.04 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- his hands and finge continued the assault complainant and also inflicted injuries upon he tried to the victims hospital. The medical record reflects multiple injuries, including at least one grievous injury attributed to a sharp scene of occur complainant. registered and investigation ensued. 3. petitioner levelled in the FIR are wholly concocted and motivated by prior enmity between the parties. complainant been lodged as a counterblast to FIR No.61 dated 26.04.2025, which been registered at the instance of the petitioner against the complainant side regarding an earlier occurrence. present case arises out of a version and question as to who was the aggressor can only be determined during the course of trial. deliberately suppressed the true the petitioner as the sole aggressor. specific role vague and unsubstantiated. -24954-2026 his hands and fingers. It has been further alleged that the petitioner continued the assault and caused injuries on the arm and head of the complainant and also inflicted injuries upon tried to intervene. On account of the multiple injuries su victims (i.e. the complainant and Sarpanch) hospital. The medical record reflects multiple injuries, including at least one grievous injury attributed to a sharp-edged weapon. scene of occurrence, the accused-petitioner complainant. On these set of allegations, the registered and investigation ensued. Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant levelled in the FIR are wholly concocted and motivated by prior enmity between the parties. Learned counsel has further iterated that the complainant nurses a grudge against the petitioner been lodged as a counterblast to FIR No.61 dated 26.04.2025, which registered at the instance of the petitioner against the complainant side regarding an earlier occurrence. It has been case arises out of a version and question as to who was the aggressor can only be determined during the course of trial. According to learned counsel, deliberately suppressed the true and material the petitioner as the sole aggressor. It has been further submitted specific role has been attributed to the petitioner and the allegations are vague and unsubstantiated. It has been further argued that there is no 2 further alleged that the petitioner injuries on the arm and head of the complainant and also inflicted injuries upon Sarpanch Rupinder Singh when On account of the multiple injuries sustained by both (i.e. the complainant and Sarpanch), they were admitted to hospital. The medical record reflects multiple injuries, including at least one edged weapon. While fleeing from the petitioner had extended threats to the On these set of allegations, the FIR in question came to be Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the in the instant case and the allegations levelled in the FIR are wholly concocted and motivated by prior enmity Learned counsel has further iterated that the grudge against the petitioner and the present FIR has been lodged as a counterblast to FIR No.61 dated 26.04.2025, which has registered at the instance of the petitioner against the complainant side has been further contended that the case arises out of a version and cross-version and, therefore, the question as to who was the aggressor can only be determined during the According to learned counsel, the complainant has and material facts and has falsely implicated It has been further submitted that no to the petitioner and the allegations are It has been further argued that there is no further alleged that the petitioner injuries on the arm and head of the Rupinder Singh when oth admitted to hospital. The medical record reflects multiple injuries, including at least one While fleeing from the threats to the FIR in question came to be has iterated that the case and the allegations levelled in the FIR are wholly concocted and motivated by prior enmity Learned counsel has further iterated that the and the present FIR has has registered at the instance of the petitioner against the complainant side further contended that the therefore, the question as to who was the aggressor can only be determined during the the complainant has implicated that no to the petitioner and the allegations are It has been further argued that there is no AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.04 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- independent or corroborative material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. himself sustained injuries in the earlier occurrence which falsifies the prosecution version and false implication case. It has been further submitted the petitioner and facts and circumstances of the case. antecedents petitioner fleeing from justice or tampering with Moreover, useful purpose would be strength of these submissions, a prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4. anticipatory bail to the petitioner by a specifically named in the FIR with clear assaulted the complainant and another injured with a sharp Learned State counsel has iterated that the occurrence clearly came armed with a deadly weapon and inflicted repeated blows on vital parts of the body of the complainant with an intention to cause serious injury. Furth version and reflects multiple injuries grievous in nature. the place of occurrence, -24954-2026 pendent or corroborative material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. Learned counsel has emphasized that the himself sustained injuries in the earlier occurrence which falsifies the prosecution version and false implication It has been further submitted that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner and, therefore, the custodial interrogation is not required in the facts and circumstances of the case. Furthermore, the petitioner antecedents; has deep roots in society and there is petitioner fleeing from justice or tampering with Moreover, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation useful purpose would be served by sending strength of these submissions, a prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the specifically named in the FIR with clear assaulted the complainant and another injured with a sharp Learned State counsel has iterated that the occurrence clearly reflects that the petitioner was the main aggressor, who came armed with a deadly weapon and inflicted repeated blows on vital parts of the body of the complainant with an intention to cause serious Furthermore, the medical evidence on record corroborates the ocular version and reflects multiple injuries, one of which has been declared grievous in nature. It has been further submitted that the the place of occurrence, prima facie supports 3 pendent or corroborative material to connect the petitioner with the Learned counsel has emphasized that the petitioner has himself sustained injuries in the earlier occurrence which falsifies the prosecution version and false implication of the petitioner in the present that no recovery is to be effected from custodial interrogation is not required in the Furthermore, the petitioner has clean and there is no likelihood of the petitioner fleeing from justice or tampering with the prosecution evidence. the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and hence served by sending him behind the bars. On the strength of these submissions, a prayer has been made for grant of earned State counsel has opposed the grant of rguing that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR with clear and direct allegations of having assaulted the complainant and another injured with a sharp-edged weapon. Learned State counsel has iterated that the nature and manner of the that the petitioner was the main aggressor, who came armed with a deadly weapon and inflicted repeated blows on vital parts of the body of the complainant with an intention to cause serious medical evidence on record corroborates the ocular one of which has been declared It has been further submitted that the CCTV footage of supports the prosecution version and pendent or corroborative material to connect the petitioner with the has himself sustained injuries in the earlier occurrence which falsifies the of the petitioner in the present that no recovery is to be effected from custodial interrogation is not required in the has clean no likelihood of the prosecution evidence. no him behind the bars. On the strength of these submissions, a prayer has been made for grant of earned State counsel has opposed the grant of has been direct allegations of having edged weapon. nature and manner of the that the petitioner was the main aggressor, who came armed with a deadly weapon and inflicted repeated blows on vital parts of the body of the complainant with an intention to cause serious medical evidence on record corroborates the ocular one of which has been declared CCTV footage of the prosecution version and AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.04 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- connects the petitioner with the commission of the offence. counsel has emphasized that the and, therefore, effective investigation and for unearthing the complete chain of events. has been further contended concession of there is every likelihood of the with evidence. which it was committed, the dismissal of the petition 5. gone through the available record of the case. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Kumar C.K. and another, 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977, reads as under: -24954-2026 connects the petitioner with the commission of the offence. counsel has emphasized that the weapon of offence is yet to be recovered , therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for fective investigation and for unearthing the complete chain of events. has been further contended that in case the petitioner is granted concession of anticipatory bail, it may adversely affect the investigation, as there is every likelihood of the petitioner influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. Considering the gravity of the offence which it was committed, the dismissal of the petition I have heard the learned counsel for the gone through the available record of the case. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Kumar C.K. and another, 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977, reads as under: “12. In a case containing such serious allegations, the High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction in granting protection against arrest, as the Investigating Officer deserves free investigation to its logical conclusion. It goes without saying that appearance before the Investigating Officer who, has been prevented from subjecting Respondent No.1 to custodial interrogation, can hardly be fruitful to find out the prima facie substance in the allegations, are of extreme serious in nature. xxx xxx xxx xxx “15. Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. 16. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be 4 connects the petitioner with the commission of the offence. Learned State weapon of offence is yet to be recovered custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for fective investigation and for unearthing the complete chain of events. that in case the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, it may adversely affect the investigation, as petitioner influencing witnesses or tampering Considering the gravity of the offence and the manner in which it was committed, the dismissal of the petition in hand is prayed for. 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 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C.K. and another, 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977, relevant whereof In a case containing such serious allegations, the High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction in granting protection against arrest, as the Investigating Officer deserves freehand to take the logical conclusion. It goes without saying that appearance before the Investigating Officer who, has been prevented from subjecting Respondent No.1 to custodial interrogation, can hardly be fruitful to find out the prima facie substance in the allegations, which xxx xxx xxx xxx Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be Learned State weapon of offence is yet to be recovered custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for It the anticipatory bail, it may adversely affect the investigation, as petitioner influencing witnesses or tampering the manner in is prayed for. and have It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun hereof In a case containing such serious allegations, the High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction in granting protection against hand to take the logical conclusion. It goes without saying that appearance before the Investigating Officer who, has been prevented from subjecting Respondent No.1 to custodial interrogation, can hardly which Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.04 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 7. serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. The allegations in the present case disclose a grave and heinous offence wherein the petitioner is alleged to inflicted multiple blows aimed at the petitioner, armed with complainant and subjected him to assault. a direct and active role in the commission of the offence. The allegations are not general or omnibus in nature but disclose a specific act of assault with a deadly weapon. The medical evidence case which reflect -24954-2026 cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accus be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconcep custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked a be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.” As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. The allegations in the present case disclose a grave and heinous offence wherein the petitioner is alleged to have launched an inflicted multiple blows aimed at the vital parts of his body. the petitioner, armed with sickle-shaped sharp complainant and subjected him to assault. a direct and active role in the commission of the offence. The allegations are not general or omnibus in nature but disclose a specific act of assault with a deadly weapon. The medical evidence prima facie which reflects multiple injuries, including grievous injury, caused by a 5 r words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.” As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. The allegations in the present case disclose a grave and heinous offence wherein the launched an attack upon the complainant and vital parts of his body. As per the FIR, shaped sharp-edged weapon, waylaid the complainant and subjected him to assault. The petitioner has been attributed a direct and active role in the commission of the offence. The allegations are not general or omnibus in nature but disclose a specific act of assault with a prima facie supports the prosecution multiple injuries, including grievous injury, caused by a r words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order ed should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. tion of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie nd he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. The allegations in the present case disclose a grave and heinous offence wherein the attack upon the complainant and As per the FIR, , waylaid the ibuted a direct and active role in the commission of the offence. The allegations are not general or omnibus in nature but disclose a specific act of assault with a supports the prosecution multiple injuries, including grievous injury, caused by a AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.04 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- sharp-edged weapon. cross-version however, the same cannot be made a sole groun bail when there are specific record corroborates and suffered grievous injur nature of injuries cannot be termed as simple or self inflicted. The manner in which the alleged assault was carried out using deadly weapon demonstrates the violent and aggressive conduct of the nay plausible cause has been shown, at th deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. 8. cross-case while considering a petition for grant of anticipatory bail. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 BNS, the Court must consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, the likelihood of fl tampering with evidence of influencing witnesses. The scope of consideration of evidence/material at the stage of anticipatory bail is limited and the Court cannot go into the detailed appreciation of evidence or determine its admissibility, which is a matter to be decided during the course of trial. prima facie implication on account of previous -24954-2026 edged weapon. The plea with regard to the version is a matter that may be examined during however, the same cannot be made a sole groun bail when there are specific and grave allegations. record corroborates and prima facie establishes that the complainant suffered grievous injury and lends support to the prosecution version. The ure of injuries cannot be termed as simple or self inflicted. The manner in which the alleged assault was carried out using deadly weapon demonstrates the violent and aggressive conduct of the plausible cause has been shown, at th deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present Furthermore, the plea of false implication case is a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon e considering a petition for grant of anticipatory bail. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 BNS, the Court must consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, the likelihood of fleeing from justice and the possibility of tampering with evidence of influencing witnesses. The scope of consideration of evidence/material at the stage of anticipatory bail is limited and the Court cannot go into the detailed appreciation of evidence or etermine its admissibility, which is a matter to be decided during the course of trial. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The plea of false implication on account of previous enmity is vague and unsubstantiated. No 6 with regard to the existence of a version and is a matter that may be examined during the course of trial, however, the same cannot be made a sole ground for grant of anticipatory allegations. The medical evidence on establishes that the complainant has and lends support to the prosecution version. The ure of injuries cannot be termed as simple or self inflicted. The manner in which the alleged assault was carried out using deadly weapon demonstrates the violent and aggressive conduct of the petitioner. No cause plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present Furthermore, the plea of false implication on account of a is a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon e considering a petition for grant of anticipatory bail. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 BNS, the Court must consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the eeing from justice and the possibility of tampering with evidence of influencing witnesses. The scope of consideration of evidence/material at the stage of anticipatory bail is limited and the Court cannot go into the detailed appreciation of evidence or etermine its admissibility, which is a matter to be decided during the At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that case is not made out against the petitioner. The plea of false enmity is vague and unsubstantiated. No of a version and trial, d for grant of anticipatory The medical evidence on has and lends support to the prosecution version. The ure of injuries cannot be termed as simple or self inflicted. The manner in which the alleged assault was carried out using deadly weapon . No cause is stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present on account of a is a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon e considering a petition for grant of anticipatory bail. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 BNS, the Court must consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the eeing from justice and the possibility of tampering with evidence of influencing witnesses. The scope of consideration of evidence/material at the stage of anticipatory bail is limited and the Court cannot go into the detailed appreciation of evidence or etermine its admissibility, which is a matter to be decided during the At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that case is not made out against the petitioner. The plea of false enmity is vague and unsubstantiated. No AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.04 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- material has been placed on record to show existence of any such enmity or motive for false implication. Bald assertions without supporting evidence cannot be made the basis for grant of anticipatory bail. has come on record, including the medical evidence and preliminary investigation, appear accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) 9. attributed to the petitioner, the medical evidence custodial interrogation for effective investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner doe anticipatory bail in the factual 10. -24954-2026 material has been placed on record to show existence of any such enmity or motive for false implication. Bald assertions without supporting evidence cannot be made the basis for grant of anticipatory bail. has come on record, including the medical evidence and preliminary investigation, appear to be established a 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. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) , the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a s well-ensconced with a favourable order under case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many usefu 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 int 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 countena 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. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, attributed to the petitioner, the medical evidence custodial interrogation for effective investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner doe anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: 7 material has been placed on record to show existence of any such enmity or motive for false implication. Bald assertions without supporting evidence cannot be made the basis for grant of anticipatory bail. The material which has come on record, including the medical evidence and preliminary to be established a 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 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) , the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is oriented than questioning a suspect who is 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 degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an 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.” nsidering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the role attributed to the petitioner, the medical evidence and the requirement of the custodial interrogation for effective investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of of the case in hand. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: material has been placed on record to show existence of any such enmity or motive for false implication. Bald assertions without supporting evidence erial which has come on record, including the medical evidence and preliminary to be established a 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 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is uspect who is of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous l 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- errogation 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 nced, for, such an 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 the role and the requirement of the custodial interrogation for effective investigation, this Court is of the s not deserve the concession of AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.04 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- (i) (ii) of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. (iii) May 04, 202 Ajay -24954-2026 The instant petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. 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. 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 8 petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. inabove 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. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. inabove shall be deemed to be an expression AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.04 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document