CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 105 Narinder Kumar @ Narinder Singh @ Nanna State of Punjab Date of decision: Date of Uploading : 1 CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of No.49 dated Sections 109, 11 Police Station 2. FIR No. 49 dated 20.04.2026 Hoshiarpur, Narinder Kumar @ Nanna along with his co assembly and attacked complainant Sandeep Kumar and Balwinder Singh with deadly weapons. alleged to have inflicted a and another blow on the face of Balwinder Singh, while the other accused -34483-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Narinder Kumar @ Narinder Singh @ Nanna V/s State of Punjab Date of decision: 17.07.2026 Uploading : 18.07.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR dated 20.04.2026, registered for the offences punishable under 109, 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 351(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023, Police Station Model Town, District Hoshiarpur. As per the allegations (as set FIR No. 49 dated 20.04.2026 got registered at Police Station Model Town, Hoshiarpur, wherein it had been alleged that Narinder Kumar @ Nanna along with his co assembly and attacked complainant Sandeep Kumar and Balwinder Singh deadly weapons. It has been further alleged that the alleged to have inflicted a Khanda blow on the forehead of the complainant and another blow on the face of Balwinder Singh, while the other accused 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-34483-2026 Narinder Kumar @ Narinder Singh @ Nanna ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR , registered for the offences punishable under 5(2), 118(1), 118(2), 351(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023, Model Town, District Hoshiarpur. As per the allegations (as set-out in the petition in hand) a case, registered at Police Station Model Town, been alleged that on 11.04.2026 the petitioner Narinder Kumar @ Nanna along with his co-accused formed an unlawful assembly and attacked complainant Sandeep Kumar and Balwinder Singh It has been further alleged that the petitioner is blow on the forehead of the complainant and another blow on the face of Balwinder Singh, while the other accused 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR , registered for the offences punishable under 5(2), 118(1), 118(2), 351(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023, at out in the petition in hand) a case, registered at Police Station Model Town, on 11.04.2026 the petitioner accused formed an unlawful assembly and attacked complainant Sandeep Kumar and Balwinder Singh petitioner is blow on the forehead of the complainant and another blow on the face of Balwinder Singh, while the other accused AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.18 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- persons also assaulted the victims with s bat. On these set of allegations, the FIR in question has been registered and investigation ensued. 3. petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in quest previous that the present FIR is nothing but a counterblast to FIR No. 50 dated 20.04.2026, which petitioner According to learned counsel, the are exaggerated and have been made with an ulterior motive to exert pressure upon that there is which casts serious doubt on the been further contended that the true and material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. It has been further contended Goldy have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by Coordinate Bench of petitioner deserves been further submitted and, therefore, the the facts and circumstances of the case. clean antecedents -34483-2026 also assaulted the victims with sharp bat. On these set of allegations, the FIR in question has been registered and investigation ensued. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in quest previous enmity between the parties. Learned counsel has further iterated present FIR is nothing but a counterblast to FIR No. 50 dated 20.04.2026, which has been registered at the instance of the daughter petitioner regarding an earlier occurrence involving the complainant party. According to learned counsel, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are exaggerated and have been made with an ulterior motive to exert pressure upon the petitioner and his family. there is a considerable delay in the registration of the FIR in question which casts serious doubt on the story put forth by the been further contended that the complainant has deliberately suppressed the and material facts and there is no independent or corroborative material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. It has been further contended that co-accused Bimla Devi, have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court and hence petitioner deserves to be granted the concession of pre been further submitted that no recovery is , therefore, the custodial interrogation the facts and circumstances of the case. clean antecedents; deep roots in society 2 harp-edged weapons and a baseball bat. On these set of allegations, the FIR in question has been registered and Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question on account of Learned counsel has further iterated present FIR is nothing but a counterblast to FIR No. 50 dated registered at the instance of the daughter of the occurrence involving the complainant party. allegations levelled against the petitioner are exaggerated and have been made with an ulterior motive to exert and his family. It has been further contended registration of the FIR in question story put forth by the prosecution. It has complainant has deliberately suppressed the there is no independent or corroborative material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. It has been further Surjit Kaur and Anil Kumar @ have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by and hence on the principle of parity, the concession of pre-arrest bail. It has that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in the facts and circumstances of the case. Furthermore, the petitioner has deep roots in society; there is no likelihood of the edged weapons and a baseball bat. On these set of allegations, the FIR in question has been registered and Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the on account of Learned counsel has further iterated present FIR is nothing but a counterblast to FIR No. 50 dated of the occurrence involving the complainant party. allegations levelled against the petitioner are exaggerated and have been made with an ulterior motive to exert contended registration of the FIR in question It has complainant has deliberately suppressed the there is no independent or corroborative material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. It has been further and Anil Kumar @ have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by n the principle of parity, the arrest bail. It has to be effected from the petitioner is not required in has f the AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.18 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- petitioner fleeing from justice or tampering with and hence bars. On the strength of these submissions, a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for. 4. anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the specifically named in the FIR counsel has iterated that against the petitioner, who is stated to have inflicted a forehead of the complainant and another blow on the face of Balwinder Singh. Referring to status report dated 04.07.2026, by way of affidavit of Kalbhushan, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub District Hoshiarpur, learned State counsel has submitted that five injuries have been caused on the complainant and as per the MLR injury No.1 has been declared to be grievous in nature. The r reads thus: -34483-2026 petitioner fleeing from justice or tampering with and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending bars. On the strength of these submissions, a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the specifically named in the FIR as he is the main accused. Learned State counsel has iterated that the FIR contains spec against the petitioner, who is stated to have inflicted a forehead of the complainant and another blow on the face of Balwinder Referring to status report dated 04.07.2026, by way of affidavit of shan, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub District Hoshiarpur, learned State counsel has submitted that five injuries have been caused on the complainant and as per the MLR injury No.1 has been declared to be grievous in nature. The r reads thus: “That it is submitted that the following is the injury chart of the injuries received by the complainant Injur y No. as per MLR Name of Accused Name of Injured Person Weapo n Used 1. Petition er Narinde r Kumar @ Nanna Complaina nt Sandip Kumar Iron Khand a 2. Anil Kumar Goldi Complaina nt Sandip Kumar Kirpan 3 petitioner fleeing from justice or tampering with the prosecution evidence no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the strength of these submissions, a prayer for grant of anticipatory earned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the petitioner has been as he is the main accused. Learned State the FIR contains specific and direct allegations against the petitioner, who is stated to have inflicted a Khanda blow on the forehead of the complainant and another blow on the face of Balwinder Referring to status report dated 04.07.2026, by way of affidavit of shan, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division City, District Hoshiarpur, learned State counsel has submitted that five injuries have been caused on the complainant and as per the MLR injury No.1 has been declared to be grievous in nature. The relevant of the said status report That it is submitted that the following is the injury chart of the injuries Weapo n Used Seat of Injury Nature of Injury Offenc e made out Iron Khand On the left side of the forehea d Sharp/Grievo us 118(2) BNS Kirpan On the left side of the back Blunt/simple 115(2) BNS prosecution evidence him behind the bars. On the strength of these submissions, a prayer for grant of anticipatory earned State counsel has opposed the grant of has been as he is the main accused. Learned State ific and direct allegations blow on the forehead of the complainant and another blow on the face of Balwinder Referring to status report dated 04.07.2026, by way of affidavit of Division City, District Hoshiarpur, learned State counsel has submitted that five injuries have been caused on the complainant and as per the MLR injury No.1 has elevant of the said status report That it is submitted that the following is the injury chart of the injuries Offenc made 118(2) BNS 115(2) BNS AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.18 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- learned State counsel has recovered and necessary for effective investigation and for unearthing the complete chain of events. the concession of as there is every tampering with evidence. manner in which it was committed, the dismissal of the petition in hand is prayed for. 5. gone through the available record of the case. -34483-2026 3. Unknow n person Complaina nt Sandip Kumar Kirpan 4. Anil Kumar Goldi Complaina nt Sandip Kumar Kirpan 5. Unknwo n person Complaina nt Sandip Kumar Kirpan 6. That in the MLR of injured Balwinder Singh, the doctor described one injury caused with sharp weapon and was kept on surgical opinion. The true copy of MLR of complainant is annexed as annexure R that the doctor declared injury no.1 of Balwinder Singh to be sharp in nature. The true copy of opinion of doctor is annexed as annexure R Raising submission in tandem with the aforesaid status report earned State counsel has contended that the recovered and, therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation and for unearthing the complete chain of events. It has been further contended that in case the petitioner is granted the concession of anticipatory bail, it may adversely affect the investigation, as there is every likelihood of the petitioner influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. Considering the gravity o manner in which it was committed, the dismissal of the petition in hand is prayed for. I have heard the learned counsel for the gone through the available record of the case. 4 Kirpan On the left side above waist Blunt/simple 115(2) BNS Kirpan On the left side of leg blow knee Blunt/simple 115(2) BNS Kirpan On the right side of leg below knee Blunt/simple 115(2) BNS That in the MLR of injured Balwinder Singh, the doctor described one injury caused with sharp weapon and was kept on surgical opinion. complainant is annexed as annexure R-3. After that the doctor declared injury no.1 of Balwinder Singh to be sharp in nature. The true copy of opinion of doctor is annexed as annexure R- Raising submission in tandem with the aforesaid status report that the weapon of offence is yet to be custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation and for unearthing the complete chain that in case the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, it may adversely affect the investigation, likelihood of the petitioner influencing witnesses or Considering the gravity of the offence and the manner in which it was committed, the dismissal of the petition in hand is I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case. 115(2) BNS 115(2) BNS 115(2) BNS That in the MLR of injured Balwinder Singh, the doctor described one injury caused with sharp weapon and was kept on surgical opinion. 3. After that the doctor declared injury no.1 of Balwinder Singh to be sharp in -2.” Raising submission in tandem with the aforesaid status report, weapon of offence is yet to be custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation and for unearthing the complete chain that in case the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, it may adversely affect the investigation, likelihood of the petitioner influencing witnesses or f the offence and the manner in which it was committed, the dismissal of the petition in hand is and have AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.18 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Kumar C.K. and another, 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977, reads as under: -34483-2026 It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Kumar C.K. and another, 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977, reads as under: “12. In a case containing such serious allegations, the High ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction in granting protection against arrest, as the Investigating Officer deserves free investigation to its logical conclusion. It goes without saying that appearance before the Investigating O from subjecting Respondent No.1 to custodial interrogation, can hardly be fruitful to find out the prima facie substance in the allegations, which are of extreme serious in nature. xxx xxx xxx xxx “15. Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. 16. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accus be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconcep custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked a be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court 5 er herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C.K. and another, 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977, relevant whereof In a case containing such serious allegations, the High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction in granting protection against arrest, as the Investigating Officer deserves freehand to take the investigation to its logical conclusion. It goes without saying that appearance before the Investigating Officer who, has been prevented from subjecting Respondent No.1 to custodial interrogation, can hardly be fruitful to find out the prima facie substance in the allegations, which xxx xxx xxx xxx Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be r words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court er herein to a judgment passed by the Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun relevant whereof Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction in granting protection against hand to take the investigation to its logical conclusion. It goes without saying that fficer who, has been prevented from subjecting Respondent No.1 to custodial interrogation, can hardly be fruitful to find out the prima facie substance in the allegations, which Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be r words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order ed should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. tion of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie nd he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.18 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 7. State, indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. The allegations in the present case disclose a grave and heinous offence wherein the petitioner is alleg and inflicted multiple blows aimed at allegations armed with a complainant namely Sandeep Kumar and another blow on the face of one Balwinder Singh. The allegations indicate that the petitioner has actively participated in the occurrence and acted in concert with the other accused persons. Hence, the role attributed distinguishable from that of the co accompanied or instigated the assailants. At this stage, the allegations facie indicate the active involvement of the petitioner in th the offence. T commission of the offence. The allegations are not general or omnibus in nature but disclose a specific act of assault with a deadly weapon. medical evidenc declared grievous in nature. previous enmity -34483-2026 hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.” As per the material available on record as also the stand of the , indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. The allegations in the present case disclose a grave and heinous offence wherein the petitioner is alleged to and inflicted multiple blows aimed at the allegations, the role attributed to the petitioner is that he is alleged to be armed with a Khanda and inflicted a blow on the forehead of th complainant namely Sandeep Kumar and another blow on the face of one Balwinder Singh. The allegations indicate that the petitioner has actively participated in the occurrence and acted in concert with the other accused persons. Hence, the role attributed to the petitioner is direct, specific and distinguishable from that of the co-accused who are alleged only to have accompanied or instigated the assailants. At this stage, the allegations indicate the active involvement of the petitioner in th the offence. The petitioner has been attributed a direct and active role in the commission of the offence. The allegations are not general or omnibus in nature but disclose a specific act of assault with a deadly weapon. medical evidence on record reflects multiple injuries declared grievous in nature. The plea with regard to the existence previous enmity is a matter that may be examined during 6 hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.” material available on record as also the stand of the , indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. The allegations in the present case disclose a grave and heinous ed to have attacked the complainant the vital parts of his body. As per the the role attributed to the petitioner is that he is alleged to be and inflicted a blow on the forehead of th complainant namely Sandeep Kumar and another blow on the face of one Balwinder Singh. The allegations indicate that the petitioner has actively participated in the occurrence and acted in concert with the other accused to the petitioner is direct, specific and accused who are alleged only to have accompanied or instigated the assailants. At this stage, the allegations prima indicate the active involvement of the petitioner in the commission of he petitioner has been attributed a direct and active role in the commission of the offence. The allegations are not general or omnibus in nature but disclose a specific act of assault with a deadly weapon. The e on record reflects multiple injuries, one of which has been plea with regard to the existence is a matter that may be examined during the course of trial, hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or material available on record as also the stand of the , indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. The allegations in the present case disclose a grave and heinous the complainant As per the the role attributed to the petitioner is that he is alleged to be and inflicted a blow on the forehead of the complainant namely Sandeep Kumar and another blow on the face of one Balwinder Singh. The allegations indicate that the petitioner has actively participated in the occurrence and acted in concert with the other accused to the petitioner is direct, specific and accused who are alleged only to have prima e commission of he petitioner has been attributed a direct and active role in the commission of the offence. The allegations are not general or omnibus in The one of which has been plea with regard to the existence of trial, AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.18 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- and, the same cannot be made a sole ground for when there are specific alleged assault was carried out using deadly weapon demonstrates the violent and aggressive conduct of the petitioner. No cause cause has be petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. The argument that the co also of no help to the petitioner as t mechanically. role attributed to the petitioner distinguishable from that of the co concession of claiming parity. accused as the principle of parity does not apply when the degree of participation and 8. cross-case is a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon while considering a petition for grant of anticipatory bail. It is well that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 BNS, the Court must consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, the likelihood of fleeing from justice and the possibility of tampering with evidence o consideration of evidence/material at the stage of anticipatory bail is limited and the Court cannot go into the detailed appreciation of evidence or determine its admissibility, which is a matter to be decided during -34483-2026 , the same cannot be made a sole ground for when there are specific and grave allegations. alleged assault was carried out using deadly weapon demonstrates the violent and aggressive conduct of the petitioner. No cause cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. The argument that the co-accused have been granted the concession of anticipatory bail is also of no help to the petitioner as the plea of parity cannot be claimed mechanically. Each case is required to be examined on its own facts, and the role attributed to the petitioner prima facie distinguishable from that of the co-accused who ha concession of anticipatory bail; thereby disentitling the petitioner from claiming parity. Accordingly, the petitioner cannot claim parity with the co accused as the principle of parity does not apply when the degree of participation and the gravity of allegations materially differ. Furthermore, the plea of false implication on account of a case is a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon while considering a petition for grant of anticipatory bail. It is well that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 BNS, the Court must consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, the likelihood of fleeing from justice and the possibility of tampering with evidence of influencing witnesses. The scope of consideration of evidence/material at the stage of anticipatory bail is limited and the Court cannot go into the detailed appreciation of evidence or determine its admissibility, which is a matter to be decided during 7 , the same cannot be made a sole ground for the grant of anticipatory bail allegations. The manner in which the alleged assault was carried out using deadly weapon demonstrates the violent and aggressive conduct of the petitioner. No cause nay plausible en shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. The argument accused have been granted the concession of anticipatory bail is he plea of parity cannot be claimed Each case is required to be examined on its own facts, and the prima facie appears to be direct, active and accused who have been granted thereby disentitling the petitioner from Accordingly, the petitioner cannot claim parity with the co accused as the principle of parity does not apply when the degree of the gravity of allegations materially differ. Furthermore, the plea of false implication on account of a case is a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon while considering a petition for grant of anticipatory bail. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 BNS, the Court must consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, the likelihood of fleeing from justice and the possibility of f influencing witnesses. The scope of consideration of evidence/material at the stage of anticipatory bail is limited and the Court cannot go into the detailed appreciation of evidence or determine its admissibility, which is a matter to be decided during grant of anticipatory bail The manner in which the alleged assault was carried out using deadly weapon demonstrates the plausible en shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. The argument accused have been granted the concession of anticipatory bail is he plea of parity cannot be claimed Each case is required to be examined on its own facts, and the appears to be direct, active and the thereby disentitling the petitioner from Accordingly, the petitioner cannot claim parity with the co- accused as the principle of parity does not apply when the degree of Furthermore, the plea of false implication on account of a case is a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 BNS, the Court must consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, the likelihood of fleeing from justice and the possibility of f influencing witnesses. The scope of consideration of evidence/material at the stage of anticipatory bail is limited and the Court cannot go into the detailed appreciation of evidence or the AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.18 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- course of trial. prima facie implication on account of previous enmity is vague and unsubstantiated. No material has been placed o motive for false implication. Bald assertions without supporting evidence cannot be made the basis for grant of anticipatory bail. has come on record, including the medical evidence and investigation, appear Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) 9. attributed to the petitioner and the requirement of the custodial interrogation for effective investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the -34483-2026 course of trial. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The plea of false implication on account of previous enmity is vague and unsubstantiated. No material has been placed on record to show existence of any such enmity or motive for false implication. Bald assertions without supporting evidence cannot be made the basis for grant of anticipatory bail. has come on record, including the medical evidence and investigation, appear 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. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] 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 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, 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.” Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the role attributed to the petitioner and the requirement of the custodial interrogation for effective investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the 8 At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that case is not made out against the petitioner. The plea of false implication on account of previous enmity is vague and unsubstantiated. No n record to show existence of any such enmity or motive for false implication. Bald assertions without supporting evidence cannot be made the basis for grant of anticipatory bail. The material which has come on record, including the medical evidence and preliminary 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 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is oriented than questioning a suspect who is 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 e 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 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 uct themselves as offenders.” Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the role attributed to the petitioner and the requirement of the custodial interrogation for effective investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that case is not made out against the petitioner. The plea of false implication on account of previous enmity is vague and unsubstantiated. No n record to show existence of any such enmity or motive for false implication. Bald assertions without supporting evidence The material which preliminary to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it State v. , the Supreme We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is oriented than questioning a suspect who is 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- e 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 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 Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the role attributed to the petitioner and the requirement of the custodial interrogation for effective investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.18 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand. 10. (i) (ii) of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. (iii) July 17, 202 Ajay -34483-2026 petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual of the case in hand. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: The instant petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 9 petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. hing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. hing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.18 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document