CRM-M-36022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 108 JAGDEEP SINGH @DEEP 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 333, 118(1), 191(3) and 190 of being referred to as ‘BNS’ Bareta, District 2. ‘Gurlal Singh @ Daak It was stated by the above 08:00 am 36022-2026(O&M) 8587 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM DATE OF DECISION JAGDEEP SINGH @DEEP VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Nirmaljeet Singh Sidhu, 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 333, 118(1), 191(3) and 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNS’ and Section 25 , District Mansa. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the ‘Gurlal Singh @ Daaku’, hereinafter being referred to as complainant only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that on 04.08.2025, at about am, when he was present at his home, 8 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36022-2026(O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 13.07.2026 .....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 Sections 109, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of u’, hereinafter being referred to as complainant only. named complainant that on 04.08.2025, at about , when he was present at his home, 8-10 persons forcibly entered .2026 .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, dated 109, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter , Police Station instance of u’, hereinafter being referred to as complainant only. named complainant that on 04.08.2025, at about 10 persons forcibly entered GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.13 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36022 his house. According to complainant 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 lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution during the course of investigation, when statement of of the present petitioner as one of the assailants in the incident. 4. 5. respondent with. 6. 7. the petitioner learned counsel for the petitioner, although there are allegations that the petitioner inflicted 36022-2026(O&M) 8587 his house. According to complainant, they were armed w 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 lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution during the course of investigation, when statement of the brother of complainant was of the present petitioner as one of the assailants in the incident. Notice of motion. respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby disp Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, although there are allegations that the er inflicted injury on the head of victim with a sharp 2 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 brother of complainant was recorded, he disclosed the name of the present petitioner as one of the assailants in the incident. appears on behalf of State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, although there are allegations that the injury on the head of victim with a sharp-edged weapon, ith various weapons and inflicted injuries on his person. The details of identity and weapon of named persons were given by the complainant as mentioned information, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution during the course of investigation, when disclosed the name appears on behalf of ensed It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, although there are allegations that the edged weapon, GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.13 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36022 but the abovesaid injury was not grievous injury. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the co and that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not favourable result. 8. abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by the learned State Counsel that past he has been prosecuted for two assault cases, wherein the FIR has been quashed respective in the present case there are very specific allegations against the petitioner that he was carrying sword. As per learned State Counsel, since the injury with the sharp weapon has been infli of the petitioner is State Counsel that weapon of offence is yet to be recovered. 9. 10. the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision:- i. ii. 36022-2026(O&M) 8587 but the abovesaid injury was not grievous injury. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the co-accused has already been accorded the benefit of bail and that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not favourable result. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by the learned State Counsel that firstly, the petitioner does not have clean antecedents, as in the past he has been prosecuted for two assault cases, wherein the FIR has been quashed on the ground of compromise between the petitioner and the respective complainant in those cases. According to learned State Cou in the present case there are very specific allegations against the petitioner that he was carrying a sword and hit the head sword. As per learned State Counsel, since the injury with the sharp weapon has been inflicted on the vital part of the body, the gravity of action of the petitioner is extremely serious. It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that weapon of offence is yet to be recovered. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a - that the weapon of offence is yet to be recovered; ii. that allegations against the petitioner are that he member of a group of assailants 3 but the abovesaid injury was not grievous injury. As per learned counsel for has already been accorded the benefit of bail and that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not likely to produce a The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by the learned State does not have clean antecedents, as in the past he has been prosecuted for two assault cases, wherein the FIR has been of compromise between the petitioner and the . According to learned State Counsel, in the present case there are very specific allegations against the petitioner a sword and hit the head of the complainant with that sword. As per learned State Counsel, since the injury with the sharp-edged cted on the vital part of the body, the gravity of action It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that weapon of offence is yet to be recovered. The record has been perused carefully. of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a the weapon of offence is yet to be recovered; allegations against the petitioner are that he was an active group of assailants, armed with various weapons; but the abovesaid injury was not grievous injury. As per learned counsel for has already been accorded the benefit of bail, likely to produce a The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by the learned State does not have clean antecedents, as in the past he has been prosecuted for two assault cases, wherein the FIR has been of compromise between the petitioner and the nsel, in the present case there are very specific allegations against the petitioner of the complainant with that edged cted on the vital part of the body, the gravity of action It has also been contended by learned of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a was an active armed with various weapons; GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.13 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36022 iii. iv. v. 11. 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 extraordinary remedy. 12. the case of Srikant Upa 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 imagi anticipatory bail is a rule. 13. case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each 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 36022-2026(O&M) 8587 iii. that the petitioner was armed with a sword, i.e. a sharp weapon; iv. that the intent of the action of the petitioner the fact that the petitioner with the help of sharp inflicted injury on the head (a sensitive/vital part of the body) of the victim; and that in the past also, the petitioner has been prosecuted for two assault cases, wherein he entered into compromise with complainants/victims. 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, 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 imagi 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 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 4 armed with a sword, i.e. a sharp-edged the intent of the action of the petitioner can be gauged from petitioner with the help of sharp-edged weapon, injury on the head (a sensitive/vital part of the body) of that in the past also, the petitioner has been prosecuted for two , wherein he entered into compromise with 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 dhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, 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 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 edged from edged weapon, injury on the head (a sensitive/vital part of the body) of that in the past also, the petitioner has been prosecuted for two the 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 dhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, 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 nation, 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 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 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.13 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36022 interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the i 14. 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 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 offe 15. 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that: 36022-2026(O&M) 8587 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 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 offe 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 sparin exceptional cases only. (ii) 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. (iii) Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offende 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. 5 interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of nvestigation. 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 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:- The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in 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 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 he power under Section 438 should not be interim 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 Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the Hon'ble 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 In the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of gly in In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the r 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 he power under Section 438 should not be GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.13 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36022 16. custodial interrogation Agency, and in the present case, if such right is den Agency, circumstances Investigating Agency 17. the relevant laws, it the extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner benefit of pre being devoid of merits accordingly 18. hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 19. application 13.07.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 36022-2026(O&M) 8587 It shall not be out of place to mention here that custodial interrogation is a valuable right and in the present case, if such right is den the same would result into miscarriage of justice circumstances the investigation may not take a proper headway Investigating Agency may not be able to collect requisite evidence. Considering the above-discussed 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 hereinabove 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 t shall not be out of place to mention here that right of is a valuable right available to an Investigating and in the present case, if such right is denied to the Investigating result into miscarriage of justice. In such may not take a proper headway and the may not be able to collect requisite evidence. 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 recorded hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending rendered infructuous. SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE :Yes/No : Yes/No right of ting Investigating . In such and the facts and circumstances and no ground exists for invoking the tion dismissed, recorded hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.13 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document