CRM-M-62577 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 104 NIRMAL SINGH STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present : SURYA P 2. ‘Vijay Kumar’ stated by the complainant lady, namely ‘Usha’ wife of Sanju, and due to abovesaid incident, of Sanju was nursing 62577-2025 (O&M) 8587 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM DATE OF DECISION NIRMAL SINGH VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Jasdeep S. Gill, Sr. Advocate Ms. Harleen Kaur, Advocate Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of Vijay Kumar’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was by the complainant that his elder brother ‘Ajay’ had eloped with a lady, namely ‘Usha’ wife of Sanju, and due to abovesaid incident, of Sanju was nursing a grudge against their family. As pe 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-62577-2025 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 25.02.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH Advocate with Ms. Harleen Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. FIR came into being at the instance of being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was his elder brother ‘Ajay’ had eloped with a lady, namely ‘Usha’ wife of Sanju, and due to abovesaid incident, the family grudge against their family. As per complainant, with .2026 .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT FIR came into being at the instance of being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was his elder brother ‘Ajay’ had eloped with a the family r complainant, with GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.26 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-62577 regard to a case filed against him, he was in custody and confined in District Jail Kaithal released on bail, and his maternal uncle According about 04:30 pm, Sanjeev, was attacked. It was also stated by the complainant that he was told that his father was 3. joined his father in the Ambulance and his father 04:30 pm, when he (father of complainant) was with two other persons, trolley, driven by Jaspal passage of their car was blocked, a white colour Scorpio bearing registration No.HR70 Nirmal carrying a Hammer, Sanju carrying a gandasi carrying wooden handle, Rajender carrying gandasi (pole persons carrying sticks and handles attacked them and inflicted injuries on their persons. with the help o inflicted injuries with the help of gandasi on help of wooden handle on complainant, Gurmeet and Sanjeev, too, injuries. 62577-2025 (O&M) 8587 regard to a case filed against him, he was in custody and confined in District Jail Kaithal, since 16.03.2024. As per complainant, on 30.03.2024 he was released on bail, and his maternal uncle According to complainant his maternal uncle about 04:30 pm, when father of the complainant , was travelling from Guhla to Kaithal . It was also stated by the complainant that he was told that his was being shifted to Kaithal Hospital It was further stated by the complainant that on the way, he joined his father in the Ambulance and his father 04:30 pm, when he (father of complainant) was with two other persons, their car was intercepted , driven by Jaspal. As per complainant, he was also told that once the passage of their car was blocked, a white colour Scorpio bearing registration No.HR70-E-5216 came from behind, dashed into Nirmal carrying a Hammer, Sanju carrying a gandasi carrying wooden handle, Rajender carrying gandasi (pole persons carrying sticks and handles attacked them and inflicted injuries on their persons. According to complainant, Nirmal Singh had inflicted injuries with the help of a hammer on the left arm and left leg, whereas Sanju inflicted injuries with the help of gandasi on help of wooden handle on the right leg and Rajinder on complainant, Gurmeet and Sanjeev, too, had come 2 regard to a case filed against him, he was in custody and confined in District since 16.03.2024. As per complainant, on 30.03.2024 he was released on bail, and his maternal uncle had visited jail for his release. to complainant his maternal uncle told him that on that day complainant, along with Gurmeet and from Guhla to Kaithal in a car, he was waylaid and . It was also stated by the complainant that he was told that his to Kaithal Hospital in an Ambulance. It was further stated by the complainant that on the way, he joined his father in the Ambulance and his father told him that at about 04:30 pm, when he (father of complainant) was travelling in a car, along car was intercepted by a tractor attached with . As per complainant, he was also told that once the passage of their car was blocked, a white colour Scorpio bearing registration dashed into their vehicle and then Nirmal carrying a Hammer, Sanju carrying a gandasi (pole-axe), Vijay carrying wooden handle, Rajender carrying gandasi (pole-axe) and 4-5 other persons carrying sticks and handles attacked them and inflicted injuries on According to complainant, Nirmal Singh had inflicted injuries left arm and left leg, whereas Sanju inflicted injuries with the help of gandasi on the right arm, Vijay with the right leg and Rajinder on the right leg. As per had come under attack and suffered regard to a case filed against him, he was in custody and confined in District since 16.03.2024. As per complainant, on 30.03.2024 he was for his release. told him that on that day at along with Gurmeet and in a car, he was waylaid and . It was also stated by the complainant that he was told that his It was further stated by the complainant that on the way, he t at about along a tractor attached with . As per complainant, he was also told that once the passage of their car was blocked, a white colour Scorpio bearing registration their vehicle and then axe), Vijay 5 other persons carrying sticks and handles attacked them and inflicted injuries on According to complainant, Nirmal Singh had inflicted injuries left arm and left leg, whereas Sanju right arm, Vijay with the As per under attack and suffered GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.26 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-62577 4. statement of complainant, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. 5. 6. the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically pointed out that in the present case, the manner in which the story has been developed itself is unnatural and unable to convince a prudent mind. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, of complainant, who was not present on the spot of the incident 7. also contended as per medico injuries on the person of deceased any vital part of the deceased. very strange manner when the post father of complainant was injuries on the body of deceased and amongst the abovementioned eight injuries, the injury No.8 was ‘ of proximal part of left leg 62577-2025 (O&M) 8587 It is the case of the prosecution that statement of complainant, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. Heard. It has been contended by learned couns the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically pointed out that in the present case, the manner in which the story has been developed itself is unnatural and unable to convince a prudent mind. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the FIR has been lodged on the statement complainant, who was not present on the spot of the incident, namely Gurmeet and Sanjeev, ha In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that another lapse on the part of medico-legal report and the contents of FIR, there were only four juries on the person of deceased and none of them was either grievous or any vital part of the deceased. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, in a very strange manner when the post-mortem father of complainant was conducted, it was recorded injuries on the body of deceased and amongst the abovementioned eight the injury No.8 was ‘two punctured wounds of proximal part of left leg’. 3 It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement of complainant, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically pointed out that in the present case, the manner in which the story has been developed by the prosecution in itself is unnatural and unable to convince a prudent mind. According to the FIR has been lodged on the statement complainant, who was not present on the spot, whereas two eye-witnesses and Sanjeev, had been withheld. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has on the part of Investigating Agency is that and the contents of FIR, there were only four and none of them was either grievous or As per learned counsel for the petitioner, in a mortem examination of the body of was recorded that there were eight injuries on the body of deceased and amongst the abovementioned eight two punctured wounds over the anterior aspect in view of abovementioned statement of complainant, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the el for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically pointed out that in the present case, by the prosecution in itself is unnatural and unable to convince a prudent mind. According to the FIR has been lodged on the statement witnesses In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has that and the contents of FIR, there were only four and none of them was either grievous or As per learned counsel for the petitioner, in a examination of the body of that there were eight injuries on the body of deceased and amongst the abovementioned eight over the anterior aspect GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.26 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-62577 8. been manipulated has contended that the injury attributed of the body, and therefore, the petitioner, who has no criminal is entitled for the benefit of pre 9. abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, present case petitioner State Counsel that the name of petitioner figures in the FIR, statement of deceased, made before the complainant, Medical Officer, (Randhir Singh) deceased, per learned State Counsel, and the prominent role played by him in the commission of crime with the gravity of offence, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of pre-arrest bail. 10. 11. settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect while exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule. Rather as per 62577-2025 (O&M) 8587 While claiming that the report been manipulated by the complainant, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the injury attributed to the petitioner is on non of the body, and therefore, the petitioner, who has no criminal is entitled for the benefit of pre-arrest bail. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, present case there is a credible evidence petitioner in the commission of crime. It has been contended State Counsel that the name of petitioner figures in the FIR, statement of deceased, made before the complainant, ical Officer, who conducted medico- Randhir Singh), and failed to mention four injuries , does not allow the petitioner to claim per learned State Counsel, in view of direct role attributed to the petitioner and the prominent role played by him in the commission of crime with the gravity of offence, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of arrest bail. The record has been perused car As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect while exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule. Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be granted only when 4 report of Medical Officer/Board has by the complainant, the learned counsel for the petitioner to the petitioner is on non-vital part of the body, and therefore, the petitioner, who has no criminal antecedents, arrest bail. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, in the there is a credible evidence showing the involvement of in the commission of crime. It has been contended by learned State Counsel that the name of petitioner figures in the FIR, on the basis of statement of deceased, made before the complainant, and that the failure of -legal examination of the deceased , and failed to mention four injuries present on the body of to claim benefit of pre-arrest bail. As in view of direct role attributed to the petitioner and the prominent role played by him in the commission of crime coupled with the gravity of offence, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of The record has been perused carefully. As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect while exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter law the abovesaid benefit should be granted only when /Board has by the complainant, the learned counsel for the petitioner vital part antecedents, The learned State Counsel has controverted the in the showing the involvement of by learned on the basis of and that the failure of deceased present on the body of arrest bail. As in view of direct role attributed to the petitioner coupled with the gravity of offence, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect while exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter law the abovesaid benefit should be granted only when GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.26 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-62577 the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for the extraordinary remedy. 12. India in the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State SC 282, has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be sai anticipatory bail is a rule. 13. case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation. 14. Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that ant remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. 62577-2025 (O&M) 8587 the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for the extraordinary remedy. With regard to such situation India in the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State SC 282, has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be sai anticipatory bail is a rule. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. ng to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation. Similarly, in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that ant remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. 5 the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for the situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. ng to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation. Similarly, in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for the , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been d that The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. ng to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of Similarly, in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the Hon'ble icipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.26 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-62577 15. 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that: 16. very specific and categorical allegations against the petitioner the fact that injuries on the person of father of complainant were the petitioner, offence. The name of petitioner specifically finds mention itself, and the abovementioned description of weapon of offence finds further support and corroborati which shows that on account of injury, fractures were suffered by the deceased. 17. adopted by the police when instead of 62577-2025 (O&M) 8587 In the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibb 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that: (i) The power under Section 438, Criminal an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only. (ii) In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. (iii) Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under exercised. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, there are very specific and categorical allegations against the petitioner the fact that injuries on the person of father of complainant were the petitioner, who was carrying hammer at the time of The name of petitioner specifically finds mention and the abovementioned description of weapon of offence finds further support and corroboration from the contents of post shows that on account of injury, fractures were suffered by the deceased. In the present case, although adopted by the police when instead of 6 he case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that:- The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of ordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the e custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be A perusal of record shows that in the present case, there are very specific and categorical allegations against the petitioner with regard to the fact that injuries on the person of father of complainant were inflicted by who was carrying hammer at the time of commission of The name of petitioner specifically finds mentioned in the FIR and the abovementioned description of weapon of offence finds the contents of post-mortem report shows that on account of injury, fractures were suffered by the In the present case, although an unusual method has been adopted by the police when instead of recording the statement of eye a etc. v. State of Punjab Procedure Code, is of ordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the e custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can Section 438 should not be A perusal of record shows that in the present case, there are with regard to inflicted by commission of in the FIR, and the abovementioned description of weapon of offence finds report, shows that on account of injury, fractures were suffered by the method has been recording the statement of eye- GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.26 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-62577 witnesses/injured, it recorded the statement of complainant, who was not present on the spot given to him by the victim before the complainant amounts to dying declaration. The abovementioned statement finds support from the fact that offence and the nature corroboration and su corroborative evidence supports the 18. weapon allegedly used by the petitioner in the commission other mitigating circumstances including the gravity of offence, it is hereby observed that interrogation is denied to the Investigating Agency, it may adversely affect the outcome of inve 19. custodial interrogation of Investiga present case, if such right is den result into miscarri headway. and the role attributed to him, arrest bail. 20. abovementioned circumstances exist in this case, which may call for the 62577-2025 (O&M) 8587 witnesses/injured, it recorded the statement of complainant, who was not present on the spot at the time of occurrence. However, he had given to him by the victim. The statement made by the victim (deceased) before the complainant amounts to dying declaration. The abovementioned statement finds support from the fact that offence and the nature of injury stated by the orroboration and support from the medical evidence. T corroborative evidence supports the prosecution story. Taking into consideration the abovementioned facts, the kind of weapon allegedly used by the petitioner in the commission other mitigating circumstances including the gravity of offence, it is hereby observed that in the given fact situation, if opportunity of custodial interrogation is denied to the Investigating Agency, it may adversely affect the outcome of investigation. It shall not be out of place to mention here that right of custodial interrogation of Investigating Agency is a valuable right present case, if such right is denied to the Investigating Agency result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation Accordingly, it is hereby held that in view of gravity of offence, and the role attributed to him, the petitioner is not entitled for benefit of bail. If the fact-situation of instant case abovementioned observations, it transpires that circumstances exist in this case, which may call for the 7 witnesses/injured, it recorded the statement of complainant, who was not at the time of occurrence. However, he had informat . The statement made by the victim (deceased) before the complainant amounts to dying declaration. The abovementioned statement finds support from the fact that the description of weapon of of injury stated by the complainant finds pport from the medical evidence. The abovementioned prosecution story. Taking into consideration the abovementioned facts, the kind of weapon allegedly used by the petitioner in the commission of crime and other mitigating circumstances including the gravity of offence, it is hereby in the given fact situation, if opportunity of custodial interrogation is denied to the Investigating Agency, it may adversely affect It shall not be out of place to mention here that right of ting Agency is a valuable right and in the ied to the Investigating Agency it is likely to age of justice, as the investigation may not take a proper Accordingly, it is hereby held that in view of gravity of offence, the petitioner is not entitled for benefit of pre situation of instant case is analyzed in the light of , it transpires that no such exceptional circumstances exist in this case, which may call for the exercise of witnesses/injured, it recorded the statement of complainant, who was not information . The statement made by the victim (deceased) before the complainant amounts to dying declaration. The abovementioned the description of weapon of complainant finds he abovementioned Taking into consideration the abovementioned facts, the kind of and other mitigating circumstances including the gravity of offence, it is hereby in the given fact situation, if opportunity of custodial interrogation is denied to the Investigating Agency, it may adversely affect It shall not be out of place to mention here that right of and in the it is likely to may not take a proper Accordingly, it is hereby held that in view of gravity of offence, pre- is analyzed in the light of no such exceptional exercise of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.26 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-62577 jurisdiction of this Court that the present the same is 21. shall not be construed as an expression of op 22. application Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 62577-2025 (O&M) 8587 jurisdiction of this Court for grant of anticipatory present petition is devoid of merits the same is hereby dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of op Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous. Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 8 for grant of anticipatory bail. Thus, it is hereby held is devoid of merits deserves dismissal. Accordingly, It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending rendered infructuous. :Yes/No : Yes/No it is hereby held . Accordingly, It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove inion on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.26 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document