CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 102 Satnam Singh State of Punjab CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referre for grant of No.327 dated Sections dated 08.10.2024), Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar. 2. petition by the petitioner) is as follows: -9079-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Satnam Singh V/s State of Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasjeet S. Dhaliwal, AAG Punjab. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referre for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR dated 26.07.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 112(2), 115(2), 117(2) (offence added later on vide GD No.53 dated 08.10.2024), 126(2), 190, 191(3), 304(2), 351(3) of BNS, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- “Cory of DDR No.42 dated 22-07 Head Constable, who had departed vide Rapat Rojnamcha No.06, came to Police Station, the contents of which are, "Statement of Manish Madhwa son of Subhash Chand resident of #09, Parwat Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, aged about 52 years, Mob. 98720 29413. Stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and is doing work of Taxi Cab. Parminder Singh son of Satnam Singh resident of Fazilka and Manjeet Singh son of Avtar Singh resident of Village Bathonian, Rajpura had a joirit business in the name of VIP Cabs at VIP Road, Zirakpur, Opposite Penta Homez. On some account, there arose 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-9079-2025 Date of decision: 27.03.202 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasjeet S. Dhaliwal, 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 112(2), 115(2), 117(2) (offence added later on vide GD No.53 126(2), 190, 191(3), 304(2), 351(3) of BNS, at Police The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present 07-2024, "It is entered that at this time, I Head Constable, who had departed vide Rapat Rojnamcha No.06, came to Police Station, the contents of which are, "Statement of Manish Madhwa son of Subhash Chand resident of #09, Parwati Enclave, Baltana, Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, aged about 52 years, Mob. 98720 29413. Stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and is doing work of Taxi Cab. Parminder Singh son of Satnam Singh resident of Singh son of Avtar Singh resident of Village Bathonian, Rajpura had a joirit business in the name of VIP Cabs at VIP Road, Zirakpur, Opposite Penta Homez. On some account, there arose .2025 482 of Bharatiya d as ‘the BNSS’) bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR , registered for the offences punishable under 112(2), 115(2), 117(2) (offence added later on vide GD No.53 at Police The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present 2024, "It is entered that at this time, I Head Constable, who had departed vide Rapat Rojnamcha No.06, came to Police Station, the contents of which are, "Statement of Manish Madhwa i Enclave, Baltana, Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, aged about 52 years, Mob. 98720- 29413. Stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and is doing work of Taxi Cab. Parminder Singh son of Satnam Singh resident of Singh son of Avtar Singh resident of Village Bathonian, Rajpura had a joirit business in the name of VIP Cabs at VIP Road, Zirakpur, Opposite Penta Homez. On some account, there arose AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.27 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -9079-2025 some differences between Parminder Singh and Manjeet Singh and both of them separated and started their respective Cab businesses. Since past few days, there was some dispute between both of them on account of this business, due to which, Parminder and his friends asked me that you are a respectable person, get or compromise e following which, yesterday on 21.07.24 at about 6.00 office of Manjeet situated at Shaheed Bhagat Singh Travels/VIP Cabs, Opposite Penta Homez, VIP Road, Zirakpur. Then outside his office, his driver met, whose name is rot known to me, who told me that Manjeet is not available in the office, following which, I asked his driver that I will come back again in the night, you ask to Manjeet to remain present in the office, I have to discuss some inatter. Thereaft Ankit reached in the parking outside his (Manjeet) office at about 11.00 PM in my Ertiga Car bearing Temp. Number and stepped down from car. Then out of Manjeet's office, suddenly, Manjeet, his brother Lakhwinder Singh alias Lucky, Goldy alias Satnam Singh resident of Patiala, Harwinder Singh alias Baba resident of Rajpura, his drivers Rcop, Iqbal, Pririce and 10-12 unknown personis, whose narnes are not known to me, but can recognized on coming before me, came towards the parking were armed with Dandas, swords, iron pipes, Gandaasas and other deadly weapons. After coming, they started beating me with their weapons. Firstly, Harwinder Singh alias Baba gave a blow upon me with Danda carried by him in his hand, however, in order forward my left hand/arm, following which, the Danda hit on my left arm and the Danda got broken. Thereafter, Prince gave a blow upon ine with rod carried by him in his hand, which hit on my right arm. Thereafter, Satnam Singh alias Goldy gave a blow upon rny head with Sword by him in his hand. Thereafter, Marijeet Singh and Lakhwinder alias Lucky gave blows upon my head one by one with the swords carried by them in their respective hands. Thereafter, Roop, Iqbal and Princ gave blows upon my legs and other body parts with the Dandas carried by them in their respective hands and the unknown boys also beaten me with their respective weapons and attributed injuries to me. Thereafter, Prince taken out cash of Rs.30,200/- out of pocket of my pant and handed over the same to Manjeet. Thereafter, Manjeet broke the gold chain worn by me in my neck and also took my mobile. Thereafter, all of them fled away from the spot along with their respective weapons while giving life t Thereafter, I saw that my driver Ankit had already ran away along with the car to save his life. Thereafter, I woke up courageously and reached the office of Parminder, from where, his office workers brought me to 2 some differences between Parminder Singh and Manjeet Singh and both of hem separated and started their respective Cab businesses. Since past few days, there was some dispute between both of them on account of this business, due to which, Parminder and his friends asked me that you are a respectable person, get or compromise effected and talk with Manjeet, esterday on 21.07.24 at about 6.00 PM, I went to the office of Manjeet situated at Shaheed Bhagat Singh Travels/VIP Cabs, Opposite Penta Homez, VIP Road, Zirakpur. Then outside his office, his ose name is rot known to me, who told me that Manjeet is not available in the office, following which, I asked his driver that I will come back again in the night, you ask to Manjeet to remain present in the office, I have to discuss some inatter. Thereafter, I along with my driver Ankit reached in the parking outside his (Manjeet) office at about 11.00 PM in my Ertiga Car bearing Temp. Number and stepped down from car. Then out of Manjeet's office, suddenly, Manjeet, his brother Lakhwinder y, Goldy alias Satnam Singh resident of Patiala, Harwinder Singh alias Baba resident of Rajpura, his drivers Rcop, Iqbal, 12 unknown personis, whose narnes are not known to me, but can recognized on coming before me, came towards the parking, who were armed with Dandas, swords, iron pipes, Gandaasas and other deadly weapons. After coming, they started beating me with their weapons. Firstly, Harwinder Singh alias Baba gave a blow upon me with Danda carried by him in his hand, however, in order to save myself, I brought forward my left hand/arm, following which, the Danda hit on my left arm and the Danda got broken. Thereafter, Prince gave a blow upon ine with rod carried by him in his hand, which hit on my right arm. Thereafter, ias Goldy gave a blow upon rny head with Sword carried by him in his hand. Thereafter, Marijeet Singh and Lakhwinder alias Lucky gave blows upon my head one by one with the swords carried by Thereafter, Roop, Iqbal and Prince drivers gave blows upon my legs and other body parts with the Dandas carried by them in their respective hands and the unknown boys also beaten me with their respective weapons and attributed injuries to me. Thereafter, Prince out of pocket of my pant and handed over the same to Manjeet. Thereafter, Manjeet broke the gold chain worn by me in my neck and also took my mobile. Thereafter, all of them fled away from the spot along with their respective weapons while giving life threats. Thereafter, I saw that my driver Ankit had already ran away along with the car to save his life. Thereafter, I woke up courageously and reached the office of Parminder, from where, his office workers brought me to some differences between Parminder Singh and Manjeet Singh and both of hem separated and started their respective Cab businesses. Since past few days, there was some dispute between both of them on account of this business, due to which, Parminder and his friends asked me that you are a ffected and talk with Manjeet, PM, I went to the office of Manjeet situated at Shaheed Bhagat Singh Travels/VIP Cabs, Opposite Penta Homez, VIP Road, Zirakpur. Then outside his office, his ose name is rot known to me, who told me that Manjeet is not available in the office, following which, I asked his driver that I will come back again in the night, you ask to Manjeet to remain present in the er, I along with my driver Ankit reached in the parking outside his (Manjeet) office at about 11.00 PM in my Ertiga Car bearing Temp. Number and stepped down from car. Then out of Manjeet's office, suddenly, Manjeet, his brother Lakhwinder y, Goldy alias Satnam Singh resident of Patiala, Harwinder Singh alias Baba resident of Rajpura, his drivers Rcop, Iqbal, 12 unknown personis, whose narnes are not known to me, , who were armed with Dandas, swords, iron pipes, Gandaasas and other deadly weapons. After coming, they started beating me with their weapons. Firstly, Harwinder Singh alias Baba gave a blow upon me with Danda to save myself, I brought forward my left hand/arm, following which, the Danda hit on my left arm and the Danda got broken. Thereafter, Prince gave a blow upon ine with rod carried by him in his hand, which hit on my right arm. Thereafter, carried by him in his hand. Thereafter, Marijeet Singh and Lakhwinder alias Lucky gave blows upon my head one by one with the swords carried by e drivers gave blows upon my legs and other body parts with the Dandas carried by them in their respective hands and the unknown boys also beaten me with their respective weapons and attributed injuries to me. Thereafter, Prince out of pocket of my pant and handed over the same to Manjeet. Thereafter, Manjeet broke the gold chain worn by me in my neck and also took my mobile. Thereafter, all of them fled away from hreats. Thereafter, I saw that my driver Ankit had already ran away along with the car to save his life. Thereafter, I woke up courageously and reached the office of Parminder, from where, his office workers brought me to AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.27 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 3. been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. As per the complainant, the petitioner inflicted a sword blow complainant. However, beyond th been made against the petitioner. Furthermore, the medico legal report (MLR) does not corroborate this assertion as it does not document any injury caused by sustained five to six injuries, all of which are explicitly classified as blunt in nature. Despite this, the complainant subsequently introduced an embellished version of events, deceitfully incorporating allegations of attacks with sharp edged weapons counsel, the petitioner has been accused of delivering a sword blow on the head of the complainant medical evidence. This glaring discrepancy unequivocally demonstrat the complainant’s account is a inflicted by the petitioner. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the incident in question is alleged to have occurred in a populated area of Zirakpur, where vehicula Despite this, no independent witness has come forward to corroborate the complainant’s version of events. Therefore, it is highly improbable to link the petitioner to the alleged petitioner is an innocent individual who has been wrongfully accused of an -9079-2025 GMCH, Sec-32, Chandigarh for treat Kindly take required legal action against Manjeet and above said persons. Statement got recorded to you, heard, which is correct. L.T.I. Manish Wadhwa. Attested Sd/-Malkeet Singh HC/1544, Police Station Zirakpur dated 22.07.2024.” Learned counsel for the petitioner iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. As per the complainant, the petitioner inflicted a sword blow – a sharp edged weapon, on the head of the complainant. However, beyond this claim, no other specific allegations have been made against the petitioner. Furthermore, the medico legal report (MLR) does not corroborate this assertion as it does not document any injury caused by a sharp edged weapon. As per the MLR, the complaina sustained five to six injuries, all of which are explicitly classified as blunt in nature. Despite this, the complainant subsequently introduced an embellished version of events, deceitfully incorporating allegations of attacks with sharp edged weapons such as sword. According to learned counsel, the petitioner has been accused of delivering a sword blow on the head of the complainant – an assertion that is entirely unsubstantiated by medical evidence. This glaring discrepancy unequivocally demonstrat the complainant’s account is a fabricated inflicted by the petitioner. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the incident in question is alleged to have occurred in a populated area of Zirakpur, where vehicular movement remains active throughout the night. Despite this, no independent witness has come forward to corroborate the complainant’s version of events. Therefore, it is highly improbable to link the petitioner to the alleged offence. Learned counsel as petitioner is an innocent individual who has been wrongfully accused of an 3 32, Chandigarh for treatment, where, I am under treatment. Kindly take required legal action against Manjeet and above said persons. Statement got recorded to you, heard, which is correct. L.T.I. Manish Malkeet Singh HC/1544, Police Station Zirakpur Learned counsel for the petitioner iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. As per the complainant, the a sharp edged weapon, on the head of the is claim, no other specific allegations have been made against the petitioner. Furthermore, the medico legal report (MLR) does not corroborate this assertion as it does not document any injury a sharp edged weapon. As per the MLR, the complaina sustained five to six injuries, all of which are explicitly classified as blunt in nature. Despite this, the complainant subsequently introduced an embellished version of events, deceitfully incorporating allegations of such as sword. According to learned counsel, the petitioner has been accused of delivering a sword blow on the an assertion that is entirely unsubstantiated by medical evidence. This glaring discrepancy unequivocally demonstrates that fabricated and no such injury was ever inflicted by the petitioner. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the incident in question is alleged to have occurred in a populated area of r movement remains active throughout the night. Despite this, no independent witness has come forward to corroborate the complainant’s version of events. Therefore, it is highly improbable to link . Learned counsel asserts that the petitioner is an innocent individual who has been wrongfully accused of an ment, where, I am under treatment. Kindly take required legal action against Manjeet and above said persons. Statement got recorded to you, heard, which is correct. L.T.I. Manish Malkeet Singh HC/1544, Police Station Zirakpur Learned counsel for the petitioner iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. As per the complainant, the a sharp edged weapon, on the head of the is claim, no other specific allegations have been made against the petitioner. Furthermore, the medico legal report (MLR) does not corroborate this assertion as it does not document any injury a sharp edged weapon. As per the MLR, the complainant sustained five to six injuries, all of which are explicitly classified as blunt in nature. Despite this, the complainant subsequently introduced an embellished version of events, deceitfully incorporating allegations of such as sword. According to learned counsel, the petitioner has been accused of delivering a sword blow on the an assertion that is entirely unsubstantiated by es that and no such injury was ever inflicted by the petitioner. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the incident in question is alleged to have occurred in a populated area of r movement remains active throughout the night. Despite this, no independent witness has come forward to corroborate the complainant’s version of events. Therefore, it is highly improbable to link serts that the petitioner is an innocent individual who has been wrongfully accused of an AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.27 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- offence he never committed. Moreover, the present FIR appears to be nothing more than a calculated attempt to harass and humiliate the petitioner. It is further fully cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the investigating agency as and when directed. Learned counsel further asserts that the co Singh, Harwinder Singh @ Bawa and Lakhvinder Ram alias Lakvinder Singh alias Lucky have already been granted the concession of regular bail by coordinate Bench of this Court. counsel that the p useful purpose would be served by sending of the aforementioned entreated for and the anticipatory 4. anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. He submits that the petitioner actively participated in the incident and is alleged to have a ‘ of the complainant the said blow, 35 stitches were administered underscoring the gravity of computed tomography (NCCT) scan of the head of the complainant was conducted, which reportedly revealed a fracture. Given the allegations, the extent of the injuries sustained and the necessity for interrogation, the dismissal of the instant petition is prayed for. -9079-2025 offence he never committed. Moreover, the present FIR appears to be nothing more than a calculated attempt to harass and humiliate the petitioner. further submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner is willing to fully cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the investigating agency as and when directed. Learned counsel further asserts that the co-accused of the petitioner namely Iqbal Singh, Harwinder Singh @ Bawa and Lakhvinder Ram alias Lakvinder Singh alias Lucky have already been granted the concession of regular bail by coordinate Bench of this Court. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation useful purpose would be served by sending the aforementioned submissions, the grant of entreated for and the petitioner be granted the anticipatory bail. Conversely, learned State counsel anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. He submits that the petitioner actively articipated in the incident and is alleged to have a ‘ of the complainant-injured which is a vital part of the body. On account of the said blow, 35 stitches were administered underscoring the gravity of the offence. Additionally, a non computed tomography (NCCT) scan of the head of the complainant was conducted, which reportedly revealed a fracture. Given the allegations, the extent of the injuries sustained and the necessity for interrogation, the dismissal of the instant petition is prayed for. 4 offence he never committed. Moreover, the present FIR appears to be nothing more than a calculated attempt to harass and humiliate the petitioner. itted by the learned counsel that the petitioner is willing to fully cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the investigating agency as and when directed. Learned counsel further asserts accused of the petitioner namely Iqbal Singh, Roop Singh, Manjit Singh, Harwinder Singh @ Bawa and Lakhvinder Ram alias Lakvinder Singh alias Lucky have already been granted the concession of regular bail It is next submitted by the learned etitioner is ready to join the investigation and hence useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the basis the grant of the instant petition is be granted the concession of the Conversely, 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. He submits that the petitioner actively articipated in the incident and is alleged to have a ‘kirpan’ blow to the head vital part of the body. On account of the said blow, 35 stitches were administered to the complainant thereby the offence. Additionally, a non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) scan of the head of the complainant was conducted, which reportedly revealed a fracture. Given the severity of the allegations, the extent of the injuries sustained and the necessity for custodial interrogation, the dismissal of the instant petition is prayed for. offence he never committed. Moreover, the present FIR appears to be nothing more than a calculated attempt to harass and humiliate the petitioner. itted by the learned counsel that the petitioner is willing to fully cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the investigating agency as and when directed. Learned counsel further asserts Singh, Roop Singh, Manjit Singh, Harwinder Singh @ Bawa and Lakhvinder Ram alias Lakvinder Singh alias Lucky have already been granted the concession of regular bail by the learned no him behind the bars. On the basis instant petition is ncession of the opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. He submits that the petitioner actively the head vital part of the body. On account of thereby contrast computed tomography (NCCT) scan of the head of the complainant was of the custodial AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.27 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 5. gone through the available record of the case. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Yashwant Patil and another whereof reads as under: -9079-2025 I have heard the learned counsel for the gone through the available record of the case. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Kishor Vishwasrao Patil vs. Deepak Yashwant Patil and another passed in whereof reads as under: “74. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the investigation intended to secure several purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts and relevant information. Grant of ant investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery of relevant information. xxx xxx xxx xxx 75. Observing that the arrest is a part of the investigation intended to secure several purposes, in Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B. [Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B., (2005) 4 SCC 303 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 933] it was held as under : (SCC p. 313, para 19) “19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes. The accused may have to be question regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons, if any, in the crime. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of m curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent his disappearance, to maintain law and order the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest may become an inevitable part of the process of investigation. The legality of the proposed arrest cannot be gone into in an application under role of the investigator is well defined and the jurisdictional scope of interference by the court in the process of investigation is limited. The court ordinarily will not interfere with the investigation of a crime or with the arrest of the accused in a cognizable offence. An interim order 5 I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Kishor Vishwasrao Patil vs. Deepak SLP(Crl) No.1125-2022, relevant “74. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the investigation intended to secure several purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to information which may lead to recovery of relevant xxx xxx xxx xxx 75. Observing that the arrest is a part of the investigation intended to Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B. [Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B., (2005) 4 SCC 303 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 933] it was held as under : (SCC p. 313, para 19) “19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes. The accused may have to be questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons, if any, in the crime. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide leading to discovery of material facts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent his disappearance, to maintain law and order the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest may become an inevitable part of the process of investigation. The legality of the proposed arrest in an application under Section 438 of the Code. The role of the investigator is well defined and the jurisdictional scope of interference by the court in the process of investigation is limited. The court ordinarily will not interfere with the investigation of a crime or with of the accused in a cognizable offence. An interim order and have It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Kishor Vishwasrao Patil vs. Deepak relevant “74. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the investigation intended to secure several purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material icipatory bail may hamper the arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to information which may lead to recovery of relevant 75. Observing that the arrest is a part of the investigation intended to Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B. [Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B., (2005) 4 SCC 303 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 933] , “19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to ed in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons, if any, in the crime. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide aterial facts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent his disappearance, to maintain law and order in the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest may become an inevitable part of the process of investigation. The legality of the proposed arrest of the Code. The role of the investigator is well defined and the jurisdictional scope of interference by the court in the process of investigation is limited. The court ordinarily will not interfere with the investigation of a crime or with of the accused in a cognizable offence. An interim order AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.27 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -9079-2025 restraining arrest, if passed while dealing with an application under Section 438 of the Code will amount to interference in the investigation, which cannot, at any rate, be done under Code.” 76. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514], the Supreme Court laid down the factors and parameters to be considered while dealing with anticipatory bail. It was held that the nature and the gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehe and that the court must evaluate the available material against the accused very carefully. It was also held that the court should also consider whether the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. 77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] and other j anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar [Jai Prakash Singh (2012) 4 SCC 379 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 468] under : (SCC p. 386, para 19) “19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. An exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. (See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran [D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran, (2007) 4 SCC 434 :(2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 345] , State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain [State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain, (2008) 1 SCC 213 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 176] and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal [Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal, (2008) 13 SCC 305 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 1] .)” Economic offences 78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain [Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2 6 ning arrest, if passed while dealing with an application of the Code will amount to interference in the annot, at any rate, be done under Section 438 of the Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC , the Supreme Court laid down the factors and parameters to be considered while dealing with anticipatory bail. It was held that the nature and the gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made and that the court must evaluate the available material against the accused very carefully. It was also held that the court should also consider whether the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring ng the applicant by arresting him or her. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 : and other judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar [Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, C (Cri) 468] , the Supreme Court held as “19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran [D.K. Ganesh v. P.T. Manokaran, (2007) 4 SCC 434 :(2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 345] , State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain [State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain, (2008) 1 SCC 2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 176] and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal [Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal, (2008) 13 SCC CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2 SCC 105 : ning arrest, if passed while dealing with an application of the Code will amount to interference in the of the Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC , the Supreme Court laid down the factors and parameters to be considered while dealing with anticipatory bail. It was held that the nature and the gravity of the accusation and the exact nded before arrest is made and that the court must evaluate the available material against the accused very carefully. It was also held that the court should also consider whether the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring [Siddharam , (2011) 1 SCC 694 : udgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai v. State of Bihar, , the Supreme Court held as “19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court ticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran [D.K. Ganesh v. P.T. Manokaran, (2007) 4 SCC 434 :(2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 345] , State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain [State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain, (2008) 1 SCC 2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 176] and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal [Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal, (2008) 13 SCC CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain SCC 105 : AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.27 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 7. serious allegations have been levelled was lodged on the basis of a complaint filed by the complainant namely Manish Kumar with regard to an incident that allegedly occurred on 21.07.2024. The complainant, who is engaged in the taxi business, stated that there was a business dispute between Parminder Singh and Manjit Singh, who previously parted ways due to disagreements. Overtime, tensions escalated between them in relation to business matters. Parmin allegedly sought the assistance of the complainant in resolv dispute. In furtherance of this request, on 21.07.2024 i.e. the alleged day of the occurrence, at about 06:00 P.M., the complainant visited the office Manjit Singh but did not find him there. Later that night, upon arriving at the office premises of Manjit Singh and while entering the parking area, the complainant was allegedly ambushed by Manjit Singh, his brother -9079-2025 1998 SCC (Cri) 510], it was held that in economic not entitled to anticipatory bail.” 15. In Sushila Agrawal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1 held that while considering an application for grant of pre Court has to consider the nature likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence or likelihood of fleeing justice. The Court held: “92.4. Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations s as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion; equally whether and if so special conditions are to be imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on facts of the case, and subject to the discretion of the court.” As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. The FIR was lodged on the basis of a complaint filed by the complainant namely Manish Kumar with regard to an incident that allegedly occurred on 21.07.2024. The complainant, who is engaged in the taxi business, stated here was a business dispute between Parminder Singh and Manjit Singh, who previously used to operate a joint taxi business but subsequently parted ways due to disagreements. Overtime, tensions escalated between them in relation to business matters. Parmin allegedly sought the assistance of the complainant in resolv dispute. In furtherance of this request, on 21.07.2024 i.e. the alleged day of the occurrence, at about 06:00 P.M., the complainant visited the office Manjit Singh but did not find him there. Later that night, upon arriving at the office premises of Manjit Singh and while entering the parking area, the complainant was allegedly ambushed by Manjit Singh, his brother 7 , it was held that in economic offences, the accused is Sushila Agrawal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, Constitution Bench of this Court held that while considering an application for grant of pre-arrest bail the of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence or likelihood of fleeing justice. The Court held:- “92.4. Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations s as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion; equally whether and if so, what kind of special conditions are to be imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on facts of the case, and subject to the discretion of the As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably, against the petitioner. The FIR ibid was lodged on the basis of a complaint filed by the complainant namely Manish Kumar with regard to an incident that allegedly occurred on 21.07.2024. The complainant, who is engaged in the taxi business, stated here was a business dispute between Parminder Singh and Manjit operate a joint taxi business but subsequently parted ways due to disagreements. Overtime, tensions escalated between them in relation to business matters. Parminder Singh and his associate allegedly sought the assistance of the complainant in resolving the ongoing dispute. In furtherance of this request, on 21.07.2024 i.e. the alleged day of the occurrence, at about 06:00 P.M., the complainant visited the office Manjit Singh but did not find him there. Later that night, upon arriving at the office premises of Manjit Singh and while entering the parking area, the complainant was allegedly ambushed by Manjit Singh, his brother offences, the accused is Sushila Agrawal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and , Constitution Bench of this Court arrest bail the , the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with “92.4. Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a , what kind of special conditions are to be imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on facts of the case, and subject to the discretion of the As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably, ibid was lodged on the basis of a complaint filed by the complainant namely Manish Kumar with regard to an incident that allegedly occurred on 21.07.2024. The complainant, who is engaged in the taxi business, stated here was a business dispute between Parminder Singh and Manjit operate a joint taxi business but subsequently parted ways due to disagreements. Overtime, tensions escalated between der Singh and his associate the ongoing dispute. In furtherance of this request, on 21.07.2024 i.e. the alleged day of the occurrence, at about 06:00 P.M., the complainant visited the office of Manjit Singh but did not find him there. Later that night, upon arriving at the office premises of Manjit Singh and while entering the parking area, the complainant was allegedly ambushed by Manjit Singh, his brother AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.27 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- Lakhwinder Singh @ Lucky, Goldy @ Sa Harwinder Singh @ Baba, his driver Roop, Iqbal, Prince and approximately 10 to 12 (dandas), accused Harwinder Singh @ Baba struck the complainant with a wooden stick which the complainant attempted to block with his left hand, causing the wooden stick to break upon impact. Thereafter, accused Prince allegedly assaulted the complainant with an i Goldy @ Satnam Singh (petitioner herein) purportedly inflicted a kirpan blow on the head of the complainant. Furthermore, accused Manjit Singh and Lakhwinder Singh @ Lucky are alleged to have attacked the complainant body while the remaining unidentified assailants inflicted further injuries with their respective weapons. Before fleeing the scene, the accused persons allegedly issued criminal threats again examination, the Medico Legal Report (MLR) records six injuries on the person of the complainant. the complainant on account of which 35 stitches were administer complainant’s head is attributed to 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 medical record purportedly s version that the petitioner (herein) has caused the injury on the head of injured Manish and fractured the right parietal bone. It goes without saying that in the instant case, the complainant has categ -9079-2025 Lakhwinder Singh @ Lucky, Goldy @ Sa Harwinder Singh @ Baba, his driver Roop, Iqbal, Prince and approximately 10 to 12 other unidentified persons purportedly armed with wooden sticks ), swords (kirpans), iron rods and axes (gandasas). It is alleged that accused Harwinder Singh @ Baba struck the complainant with a wooden stick which the complainant attempted to block with his left hand, causing the wooden stick to break upon impact. Thereafter, accused Prince allegedly assaulted the complainant with an iron rod, striking his right arm, while Goldy @ Satnam Singh (petitioner herein) purportedly inflicted a kirpan blow on the head of the complainant. Furthermore, accused Manjit Singh and Lakhwinder Singh @ Lucky are alleged to have attacked the complainant with wooden sticks, targeting his legs and other parts of his body while the remaining unidentified assailants inflicted further injuries with their respective weapons. Before fleeing the scene, the accused persons allegedly issued criminal threats again examination, the Medico Legal Report (MLR) records six injuries on the person of the complainant. The injury which has been inflicted with a the complainant on account of which 35 stitches were administer complainant’s head is attributed to 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 medical record purportedly seems to be corroborating the prosecution/complainant version that the petitioner (herein) has caused the injury on the head of injured Manish and fractured the right parietal bone. It goes without saying that in the instant case, the complainant has categ 8 Lakhwinder Singh @ Lucky, Goldy @ Satnam Singh (petitioner herein), Harwinder Singh @ Baba, his driver Roop, Iqbal, Prince and approximately unidentified persons purportedly armed with wooden sticks , iron rods and axes (gandasas). It is alleged that accused Harwinder Singh @ Baba struck the complainant with a wooden stick which the complainant attempted to block with his left hand, causing the wooden stick to break upon impact. Thereafter, accused Prince allegedly ron rod, striking his right arm, while Goldy @ Satnam Singh (petitioner herein) purportedly inflicted a kirpan blow on the head of the complainant. Furthermore, accused Manjit Singh and Lakhwinder Singh @ Lucky are alleged to have attacked the with wooden sticks, targeting his legs and other parts of his body while the remaining unidentified assailants inflicted further injuries with their respective weapons. Before fleeing the scene, the accused persons allegedly issued criminal threats against the complainant. Upon examination, the Medico Legal Report (MLR) records six injuries on the The injury which has been inflicted with a kirpan on the head of the complainant on account of which 35 stitches were administered to the complainant’s head is attributed to the petitioner. 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. The medical eems to be corroborating the prosecution/complainant version that the petitioner (herein) has caused the injury on the head of injured Manish and fractured the right parietal bone. It goes without saying that in the instant case, the complainant has categorically stated that the tnam Singh (petitioner herein), Harwinder Singh @ Baba, his driver Roop, Iqbal, Prince and approximately unidentified persons purportedly armed with wooden sticks , iron rods and axes (gandasas). It is alleged that accused Harwinder Singh @ Baba struck the complainant with a wooden stick which the complainant attempted to block with his left hand, causing the wooden stick to break upon impact. Thereafter, accused Prince allegedly ron rod, striking his right arm, while Goldy @ Satnam Singh (petitioner herein) purportedly inflicted a kirpan blow on the head of the complainant. Furthermore, accused Manjit Singh and Lakhwinder Singh @ Lucky are alleged to have attacked the with wooden sticks, targeting his legs and other parts of his body while the remaining unidentified assailants inflicted further injuries with their respective weapons. Before fleeing the scene, the accused persons st the complainant. Upon examination, the Medico Legal Report (MLR) records six injuries on the on the head of ed to the 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. The medical eems to be corroborating the prosecution/complainant version that the petitioner (herein) has caused the injury on the head of injured Manish and fractured the right parietal bone. It goes without saying orically stated that the AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.27 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- petitioner along with co in furtherance of their common object to inflict multiple injuries upon the complainant party. 8. 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 wide 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, hold that prima facie records substantiate the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the complainant. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be established 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 [State 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) -9079-2025 petitioner along with co-accused and as part of an unlawful assembly, acted in furtherance of their common object to inflict multiple injuries upon the complainant party. It is befitting to mention here that while considering 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 wide 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, prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. records substantiate the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the complainant. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be established 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 [State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) , 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 like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of t 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 9 accused and as part of an unlawful assembly, acted in furtherance of their common object to inflict multiple injuries upon the 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 need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide 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 case is not made out against the petitioner. The medical records substantiate the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the complainant. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be established 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 v. v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) , the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is 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 ng 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 accused and as part of an unlawful assembly, acted in furtherance of their common object to inflict multiple injuries upon the 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 need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding there is no material on record to The medical records substantiate the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the complainant. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be established a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it State v. v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is oriented than questioning a suspect who is well- of the Code. In a case remendous 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- ng 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 AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.27 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 9. petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. 10. of opinion upon merits of the case/investigatio 11. March 27 Ajay -9079-2025 subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenan 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. Accordingly, 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, custodial interrogation of the titioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigatio Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. 27, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 10 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 d not conduct themselves as offenders.” Accordingly, 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, custodial interrogation of the titioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, 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. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No ced, 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 Accordingly, 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, custodial interrogation of the titioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.27 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document