CRM-M-35116 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 117 BALWINDER SINGH @BAJI 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. 06.08.2025 332(b), 1 hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNS’ Station Bareta 2. ‘Gurlal Singh @ Daaku’, hereinafter being referred to as complainant only. 35116-2026(O&M) 8587 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM DATE OF DECISION BALWINDER SINGH @BAJI VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Chahit Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. 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. 06.08.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 332(b), 118(1), 118(2), 191(3), 190 of hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNS’ and Section 25 of Arms Act, Bareta, District Mansa. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the ‘Gurlal Singh @ Daaku’, hereinafter being referred to as complainant only. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-35116-2026(O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 03.07.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH Advocate for the petitioner. 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.90 dated fence punishable under Sections109, 18(1), 118(2), 191(3), 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Gurlal Singh @ Daaku’, hereinafter being referred to as complainant only. .2026 .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, dated 109, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police instance of ‘Gurlal Singh @ Daaku’, hereinafter being referred to as complainant only. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.04 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35116 It was stated by the above 08:00 am his house. According t and inflicted injuries on his person. The details of identity and weapon of offence used by the above under:- Name Deep Singh Baji Chandpura Gurvinder Singh @Malla Ravi Sharma Bittu Sain Jaipal Saini Sonu Pandit Leela Chaki 3. information, formal FIR of this case was up. According to prosecution during the course of investigation, when the statement of brother of complainant was recorded, he the presen 4. 5. on behalf of respondent hereby dispensed with. 6. 7. the petitioner is innocent 35116-2026(O&M) 8587 It was stated by the above-named complainant that on 04.08.2025, at about am, when he was present at his home, 8 his house. According to complainant, they were armed with various weapons and inflicted injuries on his person. The details of identity and weapon of offence used by the above-named persons were given by the complainant as Weapon Deep Singh Kirpan Baji Chandpura Gandasa Gurvinder Singh @Malla Gandasa Ravi Sharma Pistol Bittu Sain Kirpan Jaipal Saini Gandasa Sonu Pandit Kirpan Leela Chaki Kirpan It is the case of the prosecution that in view of above information, formal FIR of this case was up. According to prosecution during the course of investigation, when the statement of brother of complainant was recorded, he nt petitioner as one of the assailant 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. Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission 2 named complainant that on 04.08.2025, at about , when he was present at his home, 8-10 persons forcibly entered they were armed with various weapons and inflicted injuries on his person. The details of identity and weapon of named persons were given by the complainant as Weapon Gandasa Gandasa Gandasa It is the case of the prosecution that in view of above-mentioned information, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution during the course of investigation, when the statement of brother of complainant was recorded, he disclosed the name assailants in the incident. ya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appears State. Hence service of notice upon the State is by learned counsel for the petitioner that having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission named complainant that on 04.08.2025, at about 10 persons forcibly entered they were armed with various weapons and inflicted injuries on his person. The details of identity and weapon of named persons were given by the complainant as mentioned lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution during the course of investigation, when the e of appears State. Hence service of notice upon the State is the petitioner that having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.04 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35116 of crime, and accorded to contents of the FIR are silent with the regard to th by the petitioner learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the allegations 8. counsel for contradictory injury attributed to the petitioner was neither victim, nor declared dangerous to life. In view of the above contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the to the benefit of anticipatory bail. 9. abovementioned arguments. Counsel that he was a petitioner was a for causing injury dangerous to life. 10. contended that the help of axe, he inflicted injury on the foot of the victim and that the 35116-2026(O&M) 8587 of crime, and that in the present case, the benefit of bail has already been accorded to co-accused. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the contents of the FIR are silent with the regard to th by the petitioner and also qua the kind of weapon used by learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the allegations, the prosecution of the petitioner In addition to above, it has also been contented counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution case in itself is self contradictory, vague and inconclusive qua the role of petitioner, and that the injury attributed to the petitioner was neither nor declared dangerous to life. In view of the above contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the benefit of anticipatory bail. The learned State Counsel has co abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by the learned State Counsel that there are very specifically allegations against an active participant in the commission of petitioner was a member of an unlawful assembly for causing injury on the person of victim, dangerous to life. In addition to above, the learned State Counsel has also contended that there are specific allegations against the petitioner that with the help of axe, he inflicted injury on the foot of the victim and that the 3 the benefit of bail has already been . According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the contents of the FIR are silent with the regard to the nature of injury inflicted kind of weapon used by him. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the abovementioned vague the petitioner is totally unwarranted. t has also been contented by learned the prosecution case in itself is self , vague and inconclusive qua the role of petitioner, and that the injury attributed to the petitioner was neither on vital part of the body of nor declared dangerous to life. In view of the above, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitle The learned State Counsel has controverted the It has been contended by the learned State allegations against the petitioner t in the commission of crime, and that the ber of an unlawful assembly, which was responsible of victim, which has been declared , the learned State Counsel has also there are specific allegations against the petitioner that with the help of axe, he inflicted injury on the foot of the victim and that the the benefit of bail has already been . According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the inflicted As per abovementioned vague by learned the prosecution case in itself is self- , vague and inconclusive qua the role of petitioner, and that the of the , it has been petitioner is entitled ntroverted the It has been contended by the learned State that and that the which was responsible which has been declared , the learned State Counsel has also there are specific allegations against the petitioner that with the help of axe, he inflicted injury on the foot of the victim and that the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.04 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35116 abovementioned injury According to learned State Counsel, in view of abo the role attributed to the petitioner comes within the ambit of under Section 118(2) of BNS (erstwhile Section of his prim not entitled for the benefit of anticipatory bail. 11. 12. i. ii. iii. iv. 13. 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 granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for the extraordinar 14. the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, 35116-2026(O&M) 8587 abovementioned injury has been declared to be According to learned State Counsel, in view of abo the role attributed to the petitioner comes within the ambit of Section 118(2) of BNS (erstwhile Section me role and nature of offence c not entitled for the benefit of anticipatory bail. The record has been perused care A perusal of record shows:- that there are very specific allegations against the petitioner the commission of offence of causing grievous injury with the help of a sharp-edged weapon on the person of injured/complainant; ii. that the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of anticipatory bail on the ground of parity, as the co the benefit of regular bail and not the anticipatory bail; iii. that the offence attributed to the petitioner is grievous in na and iv. that the weapon of offence is yet to be recovered. As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is 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 routine. 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 above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, 4 been declared to be grievous in nature. According to learned State Counsel, in view of abovementioned allegations, the role attributed to the petitioner comes within the ambit of an offen Section 118(2) of BNS (erstwhile Section 326 IPC), and that in vi committed by him, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of anticipatory bail. The record has been perused carefully. that there are very specific allegations against the petitioner the commission of offence of causing grievous injury with the edged weapon on the person of that the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of anticipatory bail on the ground of parity, as the co-accused have been accorded and not the anticipatory bail; the offence attributed to the petitioner is grievous in nature; that the weapon of offence is yet to be recovered. 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 . Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, in nature. allegations, nce iew the petitioner is that there are very specific allegations against the petitioner for the commission of offence of causing grievous injury with the edged weapon on the person of that the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of anticipatory bail accused have been accorded ture; As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is while exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted . Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.04 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35116 has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is a rule. 15. case has further observed that rule of antici 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. 16. 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 str this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. 17. 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that: 35116-2026(O&M) 8587 has 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 of India in the abovementioned case has further observed that rule of antici 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 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 tition (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. 5 has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, 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 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 the abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of 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 tition (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 ong 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:- Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, 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 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned patory 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 protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of Similarly, in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave tition (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 ong reasons for extending indulgence of In the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.04 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35116 18. custodial interrogation the present case, if such right is den likely to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation proper headway requisite evidence. 19. the relevant laws, it the extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner benefit of pre being devoid of merits accordingly 20. shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 35116-2026(O&M) 8587 (ii) In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of 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 informat from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be exercised. It shall not be out of place to mention here that custodial interrogation is a valuable right the present case, if such right is denied to the Investigating Agency likely to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation proper headway and the Investigating Agen requisite evidence. Considering the above-discussed facts and circumstances and the relevant laws, it is hereby observed that the extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner benefit of pre-arrest bail. Thus, it is hereby held devoid of merits deserves dismissal accordingly. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 6 In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of 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 t shall not be out of place to mention here that the right of is a valuable right of the Investigating Agency, and in ied to the Investigating Agency, it is likely to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation may not take a and the Investigating Agency may not be able to collect the discussed facts and circumstances and observed that no ground exists for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner, by according him it is hereby held that the present petition dismissal. The same is hereby dismissed It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the 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 investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure ion 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 the right of and in it is may not take a may not be able to collect the discussed facts and circumstances and no ground exists for invoking him petition dismissed, It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.04 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35116 21. application 03.07.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether Whether reportable 35116-2026(O&M) 8587 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 7 Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending rendered infructuous. SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE :Yes/No : Yes/No Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.04 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document