CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----38055 38055 38055 38055 195 195 195 195 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Rajanbir Singh @ Sahil State of Punjab Date of Date of Date of Date of Decision: Decision: Decision: Decision: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present Present Present Present: SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 438 of the Cr. P.C.) petitioner, in offences punishable under Sections Sanhita, 2023 Police Station 2. namely, Baldev Singh alleged that Singh, armed with a empty-handed, began demolishing the common passage with the aid of a tractor. Upon the complainant objecting to the same, Tejinder Kaur raised a 38055 38055 38055 38055----2026 2026 2026 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----38055 38055 38055 38055----2026 2026 2026 2026 Rajanbir Singh @ Sahil versus Punjab Decision: Decision: Decision: Decision: July 15 July 15 July 15 July 15, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: July July July July 11115555, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Raghav Soni, Advocate for Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG Punjab Mr. Sartaj Singh Gill, Advocate for the complainant. ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) Section 438 of the Cr. P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the in case bearing FIR No.94 dated offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 118(2) of the Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) (erstwhile Sections 324, 326 of Police Station Majitha, District Amritsar Rural. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that Baldev Singh alleged that on 24.05.2026, the petitioner, Rajanbir Singh, armed with a datar, along with his mother anded, began demolishing the common passage with the aid of a tractor. Upon the complainant objecting to the same, Tejinder Kaur raised a 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH 2026 2026 2026 2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL the petitioner. Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG Punjab. Mr. Sartaj Singh Gill, Advocate for the complainant. filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail to the dated 10.06.2026, registered for the 118(1), 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya (erstwhile Sections 324, 326 of the IPC), at Majitha, District Amritsar Rural. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the complainant, 24.05.2026, the petitioner, Rajanbir his mother – Tejinder Kaur, who was anded, began demolishing the common passage with the aid of a tractor. Upon the complainant objecting to the same, Tejinder Kaur raised a 1111 ....Petitioner ....Respondent filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail to the registered for the Bharatiya Nyaya at the complainant, 24.05.2026, the petitioner, Rajanbir Tejinder Kaur, who was anded, began demolishing the common passage with the aid of a tractor. Upon the complainant objecting to the same, Tejinder Kaur raised a MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----38055 38055 38055 38055----2026 2026 2026 2026 2222 lalkara, whereafter the petitioner inflicted a blow with the datar on the complainant’s left arm. It is further alleged that the petitioner delivered additional blows with the said weapon on the complainant’s left bicep and the left side of his hip/waist. Meanwhile, Tejinder Kaur caught hold of the complainant by his hair and dragged him, and both the accused kicked the complainant. On the complainant raising an alarm, the accused fled from the spot. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR. Learned counsel has submitted that it is a case of version and cross-version. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has not given any alleged injury to the complainant-side, whereas, the mother of the petitioner had received 04 injuries, out of which, 01 has been declared as grievous in nature. Learned counsel has further submitted that alleged incident occurred on 24.05.2026, but the FIR in question has been registered on 10.06.2026, i.e., after an unexplained/ inordinate delay of 17 days, which creates doubt on the prosecution version and renders the same concocted one and just an afterthought. 3.1. Learned counsel has asserted that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Moreover, the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and, hence, no useful purpose would be served by sending MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----38055 38055 38055 38055----2026 2026 2026 2026 3333 him behind the bars. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. It is argued that the petitioner along with his co-accused demolished the common passage and when the complainant objected, the petitioner gave a datar blow on the left arm of the complainant and thereafter, gave more blows with the aid of datar which hit left bicep and left side of hip/ waist of the complainant. It is further stated that one injury has been opined as grievous in nature. 4.1. It is, thus, argued that given the severity of the offence, there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioner may abscond from the process of justice and/or tamper with the prosecution witnesses/ evidence, if he is enlarged on bail. Learned State counsel has iterated that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative for the purpose of effective and fair investigation and to unearth the case of the prosecution. On these submissions, dismissal of the present petition is entreated for. 4.2. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of petition in hand by arguing that there are direct/ serious allegations against the petitioner. It has been contended that the petitioner caused injuries to the complainant with sharp edged weapon, and one of the injuries has been declared as grievous in nature. Learned counsel has further submitted that, in case, the petitioner is granted the concession of anticipatory bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice as also interfere/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses/ evidence. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----38055 38055 38055 38055----2026 2026 2026 2026 4444 On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition in hand is entreated for. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case. 6. As per the prosecution case and the material available on record, prima facie, serious and specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It is borne out from the record that the petitioner has been specifically attributed the role of inflicting injuries upon the complainant with a sharp-edged weapon, namely, a datar. The prosecution case, prima facie, reveals that the petitioner, along with his mother/co- accused, had demolished the common passage. When the complainant objected to the said act, the co-accused raised a lalkara, whereupon the petitioner inflicted a datar blow on the left arm of the complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner inflicted further blows, which landed on the left bicep and the left side of the hip/waist of the complainant. The aforesaid allegations find prima facie corroboration from the medico-legal report, which records an incised wound measuring 3.5 cm over the left pelvis, an incised wound measuring 5 cm over the mid humerus near the left elbow, and another incised wound measuring 2 cm over the left elbow. As per the medico-legal opinion, the injury sustained over the left pelvis has been declared grievous in nature. Thus, the role attributed to the petitioner is specific, direct and active, and his prima facie complicity stands substantiated from the material available on record. 7. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. It is befitting to mention here that while MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----38055 38055 38055 38055----2026 2026 2026 2026 5555 considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation, as also the deeper and wider impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and the preliminary investigation, appears to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State State State State v. v. v. v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) ““““6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well- ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third- degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.”””” 8. In view of the seriousness and gravity of allegations and the role attributed to the petitioner, this Court finds no compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the petitioner. Granting bail, at this stage, would not only undermine the administration of justice but may MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----38055 38055 38055 38055----2026 2026 2026 2026 6666 also embolden the accused and pose a threat to the safety and well-being of the victim and other witnesses. 9. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, the investigation is still underway and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is being sought for effective investigation. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed dismissed dismissed dismissed. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE July 15 July 15 July 15 July 15, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment