CRM-M-19412 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 114 BHAWANDEEP SINGH @SHERA STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present : SURYA P petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 22.02.2026 115(2), 118(1), 324(4), 125, 191(3), 190 and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act Rural. 2. ‘Harjinder Singh’, stated by the above going home on his motorcycle, a black coloured car hit his motorcycle from behind and forced him 19412-2026 (O&M) 8587 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM DATE OF DECISION BHAWANDEEP SINGH @SHERA VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Jagjeet SIngh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (oral) This petition for pre-arrest bail is petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 22.02.2026, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 115(2), 118(1), 324(4), 125, 191(3), 190 and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, Police Station The abovementioned FIR came into being Harjinder Singh’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that home on his motorcycle, a black coloured car hit his motorcycle from and forced him to fall. As per complainant, he 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19412-2026 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 09.04.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. arrest bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.42 dated fence punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 324(4), 125, 191(3), 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 , Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar FIR came into being at the instance of er being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was named complainant that on 21.02.2026, when he was home on his motorcycle, a black coloured car hit his motorcycle from per complainant, he suffered injuries, after .2026 .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, dated s 109, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Amritsar at the instance of er being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was when he was home on his motorcycle, a black coloured car hit his motorcycle from injuries, after GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.09 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19412 which Bhawandeep Singh @Shera (the petitioner herein) accused Akash Sandhu and other unknown person, who were armed with deadly weapons, armed with a 12 bore rifl gunshot at his forehead and nose on vital parts of his body 3. statement 5. 6. on behalf of respondent hereby dispensed with. Counsel. However, he has opposed the instant petition. 7. 8. has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that there are major contradictions with regard to weapon of offence used with regard to injur per learned counsel for the petitioner, injuries were caused contained in the FIR, it was with a sharp 19412-2026 (O&M) 8587 which Bhawandeep Singh @Shera (the petitioner herein) accused Akash Sandhu and other unknown person, who were armed with deadly weapons, attacked him. As per complainant, the petitioner, who armed with a 12 bore rifle, exhorted to teach him a lesson and fired a at him, and also inflicted repeated blows with the butt of his rifle on his forehead and nose, while other co-accused inflicted multiple datar blows on vital parts of his body. It is the case of the prosecution that statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation Notice of motion. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. No formal reply has been filed by the learned State Counsel. However, he has opposed the instant petition. Heard. It has been contended on behalf of has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that there are major contradictions between with regard to weapon of offence used with regard to injur per learned counsel for the petitioner, the medical opinion shows that these injuries were caused by a blunt weapon, whereas as per ocular version contained in the FIR, it was with a sharp-edged weapon. 2 which Bhawandeep Singh @Shera (the petitioner herein), along with co accused Akash Sandhu and other unknown person, who were armed with him. As per complainant, the petitioner, who exhorted to teach him a lesson and fired a repeated blows with the butt of his rifle on accused inflicted multiple datar blows e prosecution that in view of abovementioned , formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appears State. Hence service of notice upon the State is No formal reply has been filed by the learned State Counsel. However, he has opposed the instant petition. half of petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that in the present case, the ocular and medical evidence with regard to weapon of offence used with regard to injuries No.1 to 3. As the medical opinion shows that these a blunt weapon, whereas as per ocular version edged weapon. , along with co- accused Akash Sandhu and other unknown person, who were armed with him. As per complainant, the petitioner, who exhorted to teach him a lesson and fired a repeated blows with the butt of his rifle on accused inflicted multiple datar blows in view of abovementioned taken up. appears State. Hence service of notice upon the State is No formal reply has been filed by the learned State petitioner that the petitioner in the present case, the ocular and medical evidence, . As the medical opinion shows that these a blunt weapon, whereas as per ocular version, GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.09 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19412 9. abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, in the present case there are very specific allegations with regard to injuries by the petitioner, and that three injuries, i.e. injurie been declared to be grievous in nature. 10. 11. sake of arguments commissi ocular version of the story, even then this fact cannot be ignored that with regard to presence of petitioner at the time of commission of offence, there is credible averment invoked in this case assembly, is responsible for the offence committed by the the abovesaid 12. settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule. Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be granted only when th the extraordinary remedy. 13. India in the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, has observed that powe 19412-2026 (O&M) 8587 The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, in the present case there are very specific allegations with regard to injuries by the petitioner, and that three injuries, i.e. injurie been declared to be grievous in nature. The record has been perused carefully. In view of facts and circumstances sake of arguments, if it is assumed that with regard to weapon used for the commission of offence, there is difference ocular version of the story, even then this fact cannot be ignored that with regard to presence of petitioner at the time of commission of offence, there credible averment in the FIR, and Sections 148 and 149 invoked in this case. Thus, the petitioner being member assembly, is responsible for the offence committed by the the abovesaid assembly. As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule. Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for the extraordinary remedy. With regard to such situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary 3 The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, in the present case there are very specific allegations with regard to causing of injuries by the petitioner, and that three injuries, i.e. injuries No.2 to 4 have The record has been perused carefully. facts and circumstances of the present case, for the with regard to weapon used for the difference between the medical opinion and ocular version of the story, even then this fact cannot be ignored that with regard to presence of petitioner at the time of commission of offence, there d Sections 148 and 149 of IPC have been the petitioner being member of unlawful assembly, is responsible for the offence committed by the other members of As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect, while exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule. Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be granted e Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for With regard to such situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine r to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, in the causing of s No.2 to 4 have of the present case, for the with regard to weapon used for the and ocular version of the story, even then this fact cannot be ignored that with regard to presence of petitioner at the time of commission of offence, there have been of unlawful her members of is concerned, it is while exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule. Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be granted e Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for With regard to such situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine r to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.09 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19412 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. 14. 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 t 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. 15. 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 Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. 16. 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that: 19412-2026 (O&M) 8587 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 of India 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 t 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 a 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: (i) The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only. 4 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 reme Court of India 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 t 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 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 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 reme Court of India 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 lias 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 be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of In the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.09 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19412 17. that in the present case, following are the factors, which need consideration: 18. custodial interrogation of the present case, if such right is den likely to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation 19412-2026 (O&M) 8587 (ii) In addition to the limitations me petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. (iii) 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. If the factual matrix of the present case is analyzed, it in the present case, following are the factors, which need consideration: (i) that there are very specific allegations with regard to presence of petitioner at the time of commission of offence (ii) that the active participation of the petitioner in the commission of offence has been specifically (iii) that the injuries suffered in the abovementioned incident are grievous in nature, containing three fractures; (iv) that there are allegations that one of the co firearm; and (v) that there are allegations that one of the co sharp-edged weapon. It shall not be out of place to mention here that right of custodial interrogation of the Investigating the present case, if such right is denied to the Investigating Agency likely to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation 5 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 vestigating 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 al matrix of the present case is analyzed, it transpires in the present case, following are the factors, which need consideration: there are very specific allegations with regard to presence petitioner at the time of commission of offence; the active participation of the petitioner in the commission of offence has been specifically alleged; the injuries suffered in the abovementioned incident are grievous in nature, containing three fractures; allegations that one of the co-accused has used that there are allegations that one of the co-accused has used It shall not be out of place to mention here that right of ting Agency is a valuable right, and in ied to the Investigating Agency, it is likely to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation may not take a ntioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the vestigating 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 transpires in the present case, following are the factors, which need consideration:- there are very specific allegations with regard to presence the active participation of the petitioner in the the injuries suffered in the abovementioned incident are accused has used accused has used It shall not be out of place to mention here that right of and in it is may not take a GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.09 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19412 proper headway requisite evidence. 19. above-discussed circumstance jurisdiction hereby held Accordingly, the same is 20. shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 21. application 09.04.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 19412-2026 (O&M) 8587 proper headway and the Investigating Agency requisite evidence. If the fact-situation of instant case discussed principles of law, it transpires that circumstance exists in this case, which may call for the jurisdiction, vested in this Court for grant of anticipatory bail. hereby held that the present petition is devoid of merits Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed It is, however, clarified that the observations m shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous. .2026 (SURYA PA Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 6 and the Investigating Agency may not be able to collect the situation of instant case is analyzed in the light of , it transpires that no such extra-ordinary in this case, which may call for the exercise of for grant of anticipatory bail. Thus, it is is devoid of merits deserves dismissal dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending rendered infructuous. SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE :Yes/No : Yes/No o collect the is analyzed in the light of ordinary exercise of the it is dismissal. ade hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.09 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document