CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----15885 15885 15885 15885 107 107 107 107 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 Nirvail Singh State of Punjab Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of 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 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) (erstwhile to the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 351(3), 3(5) of the Tarn Taran. petitioner (here (Annexure P- 15885 15885 15885 15885----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----15885 15885 15885 15885----2026 2026 2026 2026 Nirvail Singh versus Punjab Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: July 14 July 14 July 14 July 14, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: July July July July 15 15 15 15, 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. Malkiat S. Hundal, Advocate Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG Punjab ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) Present petition is the 2nd attempt Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the erstwhile Section 438 of the Cr. P.C.) to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.227 for the offences punishable under Sections 115 351(3), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Last bail plea for grant of anticipatory bail preferred by the herein) was dismissed as withdraw -7). 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 Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG Punjab. attempt filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Section 438 of the Cr. P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail 227 dated 24.09.2025, registered 115 (2), 117(2), 118(1), 118(2), BNS, 2023, at Police Station Sadar Tarn Taran, District for grant of anticipatory bail preferred by the dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 29.11.2025 1111 ....Petitioner ....Respondent filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the for grant of anticipatory bail egistered 118(1), 118(2), Sadar Tarn Taran, District for grant of anticipatory bail preferred by the , vide order dated 29.11.2025 MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----15885 15885 15885 15885----2026 2026 2026 2026 2222 2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that complainant, namely, Charanjit Singh alleged that he and his brothers were engaged in the dairy business and that Nirvail Singh (petitioner herein) frequently rode his motorcycle at high speed through the street, despite repeated complaints made to his parents. The complainant further alleged that on 10.09.2025, at about 9:00–9:30 a.m., the petitioner stopped his motorcycle in front of the complainant, whereupon a verbal altercation ensued between them. Thereafter, the petitioner left the spot after extending threats to the complainant. Subsequently, the petitioner, armed with a kirpan, Gurbhej Singh, armed with an iron rod, Harman Kaur, empty-handed, and Manjit Kaur, armed with a sota (wooden stick), arrived at the complainant’s house. Harman Kaur allegedly raised a lalkara (exhortation), whereupon the remaining accused assaulted the complainant with their respective weapons, inflicting multiple injuries. As a result of the assault, the complainant sustained serious injuries and was immediately shifted to the hospital for medical treatment. 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 the petitioner-side and the complainant- side are neighbor and there was mere a trivial dispute between them related to alleged speed of the motorcycle being driven by the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that, in fact, on 10.09.2025, when the petitioner was passing by the house of the complainant, he was stopped and attacked by the MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----15885 15885 15885 15885----2026 2026 2026 2026 3333 complainant-side and, thus, he had suffered injuries. Learned counsel has submitted that the said incident was reported to the police, but the police did not register the FIR against the complainant-side. Learned counsel has further submitted that after receiving injuries, the petitioner was even hospitalized and MLR was also prepared. Learned counsel has urged that the petitioner has been attributed the role of giving one reverse side blow of kirpan on the wrist of left arm and the other one on the right leg below the knee of the complainant. It has been submitted that one injury is simple in nature, whereas, the other one is grievous; however, the same is on a non- vital part of the body. Learned counsel has further urged that there is an unexplained/ inordinate delay of 17 days in lodging the FIR in question. 3.1. Learned counsel has urged that co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Manjit Kaur and Gurbhej Singh have already been granted concession of anticipatory bail by this Court, vide order dated 12.01.2026 passed in CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----63135 63135 63135 63135----2025 2025 2025 2025. 3.2. 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 him behind the bars. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for. 4. Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of an affidavit dated 06.04.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said status report, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----15885 15885 15885 15885----2026 2026 2026 2026 4444 arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. It is argued that the petitioner along with his co-accused gave injuries to the complainant with their respective weapons. Paras-7 & 8 of the aforesaid status report read thus: ““““ROLE OF THE PETITIONER ROLE OF THE PETITIONER ROLE OF THE PETITIONER ROLE OF THE PETITIONER: 7. That as far as role of the petitioner Nirvail Singh is concerned, it is submitted that the petitioner was armed with sharp edged weapon i.e. Kirpan at the spot and the petitioner Nirvail Singh has given two blows of Kirpan upon the complainant and one blow hit on the wrist of left arm of complainant and the second blow of the kirpan hit below the knee of right leg of the complainant and out of the two injuries, one injury was also declared as Grievous in nature by the board of doctors. As such, the petitioner has committed the serious offence and he is certainly not entitled for the concession of anticipatory bail and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is utmost required in the present case in order to recover the weapon i.e. Kirpan and further to bring the investigation of the present case to its logical conclusion. EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER: 8. That as far as evidence against the petitioner is concerned, it is submitted that there are specific and direct allegations against the petitioner as the petitioner was armed with sharp edged weapon i.e. Kirpan at the spot and the petitioner given two blow of Kirpan upon the complainant and one injury was declared as grievous in nature. Moreover, the MLR of the complainant has also been conducted. As such, there is ample evidence against the petitioner.”””” 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. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----15885 15885 15885 15885----2026 2026 2026 2026 5555 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 on the date of the alleged occurrence, the petitioner is stated to have stopped his motorcycle in front of the complainant, which led to a verbal altercation between them. Thereafter, the petitioner allegedly left the spot after extending threats to the complainant. It is further the case of the prosecution that shortly thereafter, the petitioner, armed with a kirpan, along with co-accused Gurbhej Singh, armed with an iron rod, Harman Kaur, who was empty-handed, and Manjit Kaur, armed with a sota (wooden stick), reached the residence of the complainant. Harman Kaur allegedly raised a lalkara, exhorting the co- accused, whereupon the petitioner and the remaining accused allegedly assaulted the complainant with their respective weapons, inflicting multiple injuries upon his person. The petitioner, allegedly, gave two blows of kirpan upon the complainant; one blow hit on the wrist of left arm of complainant and the second blow of the kirpan hit below the knee of right leg of the complainant. Owing to the injuries sustained in the said assault, the complainant was immediately shifted to the hospital for medical treatment. As per the medico-legal opinion, one injury suffered by the complainant has been declared grievous in nature. The role attributed to the petitioner is specific, direct and active in nature and his complicity, prima facie, stands established from the material on record. 6.1. It has been pleaded by the petitioner that co-accused, namely, Manjit Kaur and Gurbhej Singh have been granted concession of anticipatory bail by this Court. The case of the petitioner is different from co-accused – Manjit Kaur as she was a lady aged 76 years with no specific MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----15885 15885 15885 15885----2026 2026 2026 2026 6666 role, whereas, the other co-accused, namely, Gurbhej Singh was attributed injury on the index finger of the injured with an iron rod, but the petitioner (herein) has been attributed the role of having used kirpan (sharp edged weapon) with which he alleged to have given two blows on the complainant. 6.2. 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. 7. It is befitting to mention here that while 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. Anil Sharma, (1997) v. Anil Sharma, (1997) v. Anil Sharma, (1997) v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] 1039] 1039] 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----15885 15885 15885 15885----2026 2026 2026 2026 7777 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 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 14 July 14 July 14 July 14, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment