CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 118 ALI STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CORAM: Present: RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL) 1. of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for issuance of appropriate directions to the respondents no. 3 and 4 to arrest the private respondents who were specifically named in the FIR No. 79 dated 19. 103(1), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 2023. 2. on 19.07.2025 petitioner's brother Rahim was fatally attacked by private respondents along with unidentified -25396 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. Rajvir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for issuance of appropriate directions to the respondents no. 3 and 4 to arrest the private respondents who were specifically named in the FIR No. 79 dated 19. 103(1), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 19.07.2025 petitioner's brother Rahim was fatally attacked by private respondents along with unidentified IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-25396 of 2026 Date of Decision: 07.05.2026 ....Petitioner STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ....Respondent HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Rajvir Singh, Advocate RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for issuance of appropriate directions to the respondents no. 3 and 4 to arrest the private respondents who were specifically named in the FIR No. 79 dated 19.07.2025 under Section 103(1), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 19.07.2025 petitioner's brother Rahim was fatally attacked by private respondents along with unidentified of 2026 .2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for issuance of appropriate directions to the respondents no. 3 and 4 to arrest the private respondents who were specifically 07.2025 under Section Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 19.07.2025 petitioner's brother Rahim was fatally attacked by private respondents along with unidentified PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.08 13.53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M- persons who were arme clear identification of the accused and registration of the above mentioned FIR, the police have failed to arrest the majority of the accused persons. He further submitted that only one accused has been apprehended till da others continue to evade arrest despite rejection of their anticipatory bail applications and official communication from senior police authorities. He argued that the petitioner has repeatedly approached the authorities through representations, s effective action has been taken. He further submitted that even the accused persons have been declared PO by the concerned Court, however, police moved an application to cancel the said order with assertion that these declared innocent by the SP (Investigation), Patiala. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for appropriate directions to be issued to the official respondents to arrest the private respondents. 3. grievance of the petitioner primarily pertains to the alleged inaction on the part of the investigating agency in effecting arrest of all the accused persons despite their nomination in the FIR and rejection of their anticipatory bail applic -25396 of 2026 -2- persons who were armed with deadly weapons and despite clear identification of the accused and registration of the above mentioned FIR, the police have failed to arrest the majority of the accused persons. He further submitted that only one accused has been apprehended till da others continue to evade arrest despite rejection of their anticipatory bail applications and official communication from senior police authorities. He argued that the petitioner has repeatedly approached the authorities through representations, seeking justice and protection, but no effective action has been taken. He further submitted that even the accused persons have been declared PO by the concerned Court, however, police moved an application to cancel the said order with assertion that these declared innocent by the SP (Investigation), Patiala. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for appropriate directions to be issued to the official respondents to arrest the private respondents. At the outset, it is pertinent to grievance of the petitioner primarily pertains to the alleged inaction on the part of the investigating agency in effecting arrest of all the accused persons despite their nomination in the FIR and rejection of their anticipatory bail applic d with deadly weapons and despite clear identification of the accused and registration of the above mentioned FIR, the police have failed to arrest the majority of the accused persons. He further submitted that only one accused has been apprehended till date while others continue to evade arrest despite rejection of their anticipatory bail applications and official communication from senior police authorities. He argued that the petitioner has repeatedly approached the authorities through eeking justice and protection, but no effective action has been taken. He further submitted that even the accused persons have been declared PO by the concerned Court, however, police moved an application to cancel the said order with assertion that these persons were declared innocent by the SP (Investigation), Patiala. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for appropriate directions to be issued to the official respondents to arrest At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the grievance of the petitioner primarily pertains to the alleged inaction on the part of the investigating agency in effecting arrest of all the accused persons despite their nomination in the FIR and rejection of their anticipatory bail applications. d with deadly weapons and despite clear identification of the accused and registration of the above mentioned FIR, the police have failed to arrest the majority of the accused persons. He further submitted that te while others continue to evade arrest despite rejection of their anticipatory bail applications and official communication from senior police authorities. He argued that the petitioner has repeatedly approached the authorities through eeking justice and protection, but no effective action has been taken. He further submitted that even the accused persons have been declared PO by the concerned Court, however, police moved an application to persons were declared innocent by the SP (Investigation), Patiala. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for appropriate directions to be issued to the official respondents to arrest note that the grievance of the petitioner primarily pertains to the alleged inaction on the part of the investigating agency in effecting arrest of all the accused persons despite their nomination in ations. PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.08 13.53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M- 4. advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and has also gone through the material placed on record. It is well settled that arrest of an accused during the course of investigation does not constit criminal case. The power to arrest is vested with the investigating agency, which is required to exercise such discretion on the basis of facts and circumstances emerging during investigation. The manner in which invest to be conducted ordinarily falls within the exclusive domain of the police authorities and the Courts, with the same unless a clear case of mala fide, deliberate inaction or patent abuse of process is made out. this regard is placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of 2003 (2) SCC 649; Court cannot direct the police to arrest accused and such power of police to arrest an police not always bound to arrest an accused even if the allegation against him is of having committed a cognizable offence. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced below: -25396 of 2026 -3- This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and has also gone through the material placed on record. It is well settled that arrest of an accused during the course of investigation does not constitute a mandatory requirement in every criminal case. The power to arrest is vested with the investigating agency, which is required to exercise such discretion on the basis of facts and circumstances emerging during investigation. The manner in which invest to be conducted ordinarily falls within the exclusive domain of the police authorities and the Courts, with the same unless a clear case of mala fide, deliberate inaction or patent abuse of process is made out. regard is placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M.C. Abraham v. State of Maharashtra, 2003 (2) SCC 649; wherein the apex Court has held that Court cannot direct the police to arrest accused and such power of police to arrest an accused is discretionary and police not always bound to arrest an accused even if the allegation against him is of having committed a cognizable offence. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced below: “14. Tested in the light of the principles aforesaid, th impugned orders dated 10th January, 2002 and 11th January, 2002 must be held to be orders passed by This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and has also gone through the material placed on record. It is well settled that arrest of an accused during the course of investigation ute a mandatory requirement in every criminal case. The power to arrest is vested with the investigating agency, which is required to exercise such discretion on the basis of facts and circumstances emerging during investigation. The manner in which investigation is to be conducted ordinarily falls within the exclusive domain of the police authorities and the Courts, cannot interfere with the same unless a clear case of mala fide, deliberate inaction or patent abuse of process is made out. Reliance in regard is placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme M.C. Abraham v. State of Maharashtra, wherein the apex Court has held that Court cannot direct the police to arrest accused and such accused is discretionary and police not always bound to arrest an accused even if the allegation against him is of having committed a cognizable offence. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced below: “14. Tested in the light of the principles aforesaid, th impugned orders dated 10th January, 2002 and 11th January, 2002 must be held to be orders passed by This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and has also gone through the material placed on record. It is well settled that arrest of an accused during the course of investigation ute a mandatory requirement in every criminal case. The power to arrest is vested with the investigating agency, which is required to exercise such discretion on the basis of facts and circumstances emerging igation is to be conducted ordinarily falls within the exclusive domain cannot interfere with the same unless a clear case of mala fide, deliberate Reliance in regard is placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme M.C. Abraham v. State of Maharashtra, wherein the apex Court has held that Court cannot direct the police to arrest accused and such accused is discretionary and police not always bound to arrest an accused even if the allegation against him is of having committed a cognizable “14. Tested in the light of the principles aforesaid, the impugned orders dated 10th January, 2002 and 11th January, 2002 must be held to be orders passed by PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.08 13.53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-25396 of 2026 -4- over-stepping the para-meters of judicial interference in such matters. In the first place, arrest of an accused is a part of the investigation and is wit of the investigating officer. Section Criminal Procedure provides for arrest by a police officer without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant. The Section gives officer who may, without an order from a Magistrate and even without a warrant, arrest any person in the situations enumerated in that section. It is open to him, in the course of investigation, to arrest any person who has been concerned with any congnizable offence or against whom reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been so concerned. Obviously, he is not expected to act in a mechanical manner and in all cases to arrest the accused as soon as the report is lodged. In appropriate cases, after some investigation, the investigating officer may make up his mind as to whether it is necessary to arrest the accused person. At that stage the Court has play. Since the power is discretionary, a police officer is not always bound to arrest an accused even if the allegation against him is of having committed a cognizable offence. Since an arrest is in the nature of an encroachment on the liberty meters of judicial interference in such matters. In the first place, arrest of an accused is a part of the investigation and is within the discretion of the investigating officer. Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for arrest by a police officer without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant. The Section gives discretion to the police officer who may, without an order from a Magistrate and even without a warrant, arrest any person in the situations enumerated in that section. It is open to him, in the course of investigation, to arrest any person who oncerned with any congnizable offence or against whom reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been so concerned. Obviously, he is not expected to act in a mechanical r and in all cases to arrest the accused as soon In appropriate cases, after some investigation, the investigating officer may make up his mind as to whether it is necessary to arrest the accused person. At that stage the Court has no role to play. Since the power is discretionary, a police officer is not always bound to arrest an accused even if the allegation against him is of having committed a . Since an arrest is in the nature of an encroachment on the liberty of the subject and does meters of judicial interference in such matters. In the first place, arrest of an accused is hin the discretion of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for arrest by a police officer without an order from a Magistrate and without discretion to the police officer who may, without an order from a Magistrate and even without a warrant, arrest any person in the situations enumerated in that section. It is open to him, in the course of investigation, to arrest any person who oncerned with any congnizable offence or against whom reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been so concerned. Obviously, he is not expected to act in a mechanical r and in all cases to arrest the accused as soon In appropriate cases, after some investigation, the investigating officer may make up his mind as to whether it is necessary to arrest the no role to play. Since the power is discretionary, a police officer is not always bound to arrest an accused even if the allegation against him is of having committed a . Since an arrest is in the nature of of the subject and does PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.08 13.53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-25396 of 2026 -5- effect the reputation and status of the citizens, the power has to be cautiously exercised. It depends inter alia upon the nature of the offence alleged and the type of persons who are accused of having committed the cognizable offence. Obviously, the power has to be exercised with caution and circumspection. 15. In the instant case the appellants had not been arrested. It appears that the result of the investigation showed that no amount had been defalcated. We are here not concerned with the correctness of the conclusion that the investigating officer may have reached. What is, however, significant is that the investigating officer did not consider it necessary, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, to arrest the accused. no justification for the High Court to direct the State to arrest the appellants against whom the first information report was lodged, as it amounted to unjustified interference in the investigation of the case. The mere fact that the bail applications of some of the appellants had been rejected is no ground for directing their immediate arrest. In the very nature of things, a person may move the Court on mere apprehension that he may be arrested. The Court may or may anticipatory bail depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the material placed effect the reputation and status of the citizens, the power has to be cautiously exercised. It depends inter alia upon the nature of the offence alleged and the type of persons who are accused of having committed the ence. Obviously, the power has to be exercised with caution and circumspection. 15. In the instant case the appellants had not been arrested. It appears that the result of the investigation showed that no amount had been defalcated. We are ed with the correctness of the conclusion that the investigating officer may have reached. What is, however, significant is that the investigating officer did not consider it necessary, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the t the accused. In such a case there was no justification for the High Court to direct the State to arrest the appellants against whom the first information report was lodged, as it amounted to unjustified interference in the investigation of the case. mere fact that the bail applications of some of the appellants had been rejected is no ground for directing In the very nature of things, a person may move the Court on mere apprehension that he may be arrested. The Court may or may not grant anticipatory bail depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the material placed effect the reputation and status of the citizens, the power has to be cautiously exercised. It depends inter alia upon the nature of the offence alleged and the type of persons who are accused of having committed the ence. Obviously, the power has to be 15. In the instant case the appellants had not been arrested. It appears that the result of the investigation showed that no amount had been defalcated. We are ed with the correctness of the conclusion that the investigating officer may have reached. What is, however, significant is that the investigating officer did not consider it necessary, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the In such a case there was no justification for the High Court to direct the State to arrest the appellants against whom the first information report was lodged, as it amounted to unjustified interference in the investigation of the case. mere fact that the bail applications of some of the appellants had been rejected is no ground for directing In the very nature of things, a person may move the Court on mere apprehension that not grant anticipatory bail depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the material placed PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.08 13.53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M- 5. FIR admittedly stands registered and that one of the accused persons has already been apprehended and proceedings under law have been initiated against the remaining accused persons. The submissions raised by learned counsel f declaration of some accused as proclaimed offenders as well as subsequent proceedings undertaken by the investigating -25396 of 2026 -6- before the Court. There may, however, be cases where the application for grant of anticipatory bail may be rejected and ultimately, after investigat person may not be put up for trial as no material is disclosed against him in the course of investigation. The High Court proceeded on the assumption that since petitions for anticipatory bail had been rejected, there was no option open for t persons. This assumption, to our mind, is erroneous. A person whose petition for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected may or may not be arrested by the investigating officer depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the offences, the background of the accused, the facts disclosed in the course of investigation and other relevant considerations.” Adverting to the facts of the present petition FIR admittedly stands registered and that one of the accused persons has already been apprehended and proceedings under law have been initiated against the remaining accused persons. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding declaration of some accused as proclaimed offenders as well as subsequent proceedings undertaken by the investigating before the Court. There may, however, be cases where the application for grant of anticipatory bail may be rejected and ultimately, after investigation, the said person may not be put up for trial as no material is disclosed against him in the course of investigation. The High Court proceeded on the assumption that since petitions for anticipatory bail had been rejected, there was no option open for the State but to arrest those persons. This assumption, to our mind, is erroneous. A person whose petition for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected may or may not be arrested by the investigating officer depending upon the facts and the case, nature of the offences, the background of the accused, the facts disclosed in the course of investigation and other relevant ……..emphasis supplied Adverting to the facts of the present petition, the FIR admittedly stands registered and it is also not disputed that one of the accused persons has already been apprehended and proceedings under law have been initiated against the remaining accused persons. The submissions or the petitioner regarding declaration of some accused as proclaimed offenders as well as subsequent proceedings undertaken by the investigating before the Court. There may, however, be cases where the application for grant of anticipatory bail may be ion, the said person may not be put up for trial as no material is disclosed against him in the course of investigation. The High Court proceeded on the assumption that since petitions for anticipatory bail had been rejected, there he State but to arrest those persons. This assumption, to our mind, is erroneous. A person whose petition for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected may or may not be arrested by the investigating officer depending upon the facts and the case, nature of the offences, the background of the accused, the facts disclosed in the course of investigation and other relevant , the is also not disputed that one of the accused persons has already been apprehended and proceedings under law have been initiated against the remaining accused persons. The submissions or the petitioner regarding declaration of some accused as proclaimed offenders as well as subsequent proceedings undertaken by the investigating PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.08 13.53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M- agency are all matters intrinsically connected with the investigation and are liable to be examined by the com Court in accordance with law. Merely because the petitioner is dissatisfied with the pace or manner of investigation would not ipso facto trite law that no person can claim arrest of an accused as a matter o unwarranted interference in the statutory powers of the investigating agency. 6. that the investigation is wholly unfair, tainted or being conducted Court in exercise of its inherent/writ jurisdiction. In absence thereof, this Court does not find any ground to issue directions as prayed for by the petitioner. 7. petition, the same is hereby dismissed. 07.05.2026 Puneet… -25396 of 2026 -7- agency are all matters intrinsically connected with the investigation and are liable to be examined by the com Court in accordance with law. Merely because the petitioner is dissatisfied with the pace or manner of investigation would not ipso facto warrant interference by this Court. trite law that no person can claim arrest of an accused as a matter of right. Such directions, if issued, would amount to unwarranted interference in the statutory powers of the investigating agency. No material has been placed on record to establish that the investigation is wholly unfair, tainted or being conducted in a manner warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent/writ jurisdiction. In absence thereof, this Court does not find any ground to issue directions as prayed for by the petitioner. Consequently, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed. .2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable agency are all matters intrinsically connected with the investigation and are liable to be examined by the competent Court in accordance with law. Merely because the petitioner is dissatisfied with the pace or manner of investigation warrant interference by this Court. It is trite law that no person can claim arrest of an accused as a f right. Such directions, if issued, would amount to unwarranted interference in the statutory powers of the No material has been placed on record to establish that the investigation is wholly unfair, tainted or being in a manner warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent/writ jurisdiction. In absence thereof, this Court does not find any ground to issue directions as prayed for by the petitioner. Consequently, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed. (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No agency are all matters intrinsically connected with the petent Court in accordance with law. Merely because the petitioner is dissatisfied with the pace or manner of investigation It is trite law that no person can claim arrest of an accused as a f right. Such directions, if issued, would amount to unwarranted interference in the statutory powers of the No material has been placed on record to establish that the investigation is wholly unfair, tainted or being in a manner warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent/writ jurisdiction. In absence thereof, this Court does not find any ground to issue Consequently, finding no merit in the present (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.08 13.53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment