CRM IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 103 Kapil State of Haryana CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, for grant of No.123 dated Sections 191(3), 190, 115(2), 351(3), 109(1), 61(2), 117 Section 25 Palwal. 2. 28.03.2025 information from the Palwal the village Patli Khurd ASI Subhash, accompanied by other police personnel, proceeded to the location in a government vehicle. Upon arrival, both disputing pa initially counselled and directed to appear at the police post with their land ownership documents. indicating a renewed clash at the same location. The police team returned to CRM-M-32213-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH V/s State of Haryana CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Vibhor Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Aashish Bishnoi, DAG Haryana. Mr. KDS Hooda, Advocate for the complainant. ***** 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 28.03.2025, registered for the offences punishable under 191(3), 190, 115(2), 351(3), 109(1), 61(2), 117 Section 25-54-59 of the Arms Act, at Police Station The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that 28.03.2025, ASI Subhash, while present at the police post, received information from the Palwal control room regarding a violent altercation in village Patli Khurd arising from a land dispute ASI Subhash, accompanied by other police personnel, proceeded to the location in a government vehicle. Upon arrival, both disputing pa initially counselled and directed to appear at the police post with their land ownership documents. Later that day, further information was received indicating a renewed clash at the same location. The police team returned to 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-32213-2025 Date of decision: 03.07.202 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Vibhor Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Aashish Bishnoi, DAG Haryana. Mr. KDS Hooda, Advocate for the complainant. ***** Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR , registered for the offences punishable under 191(3), 190, 115(2), 351(3), 109(1), 61(2), 117 of BNS Act and at Police Station City Palwal, District The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that , ASI Subhash, while present at the police post, received control room regarding a violent altercation in land dispute. Responding promptly, ASI Subhash, accompanied by other police personnel, proceeded to the location in a government vehicle. Upon arrival, both disputing parties were initially counselled and directed to appear at the police post with their land Later that day, further information was received indicating a renewed clash at the same location. The police team returned to .2025 482 of Bharatiya 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR , registered for the offences punishable under and City Palwal, District The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that on , ASI Subhash, while present at the police post, received an control room regarding a violent altercation in . Responding promptly, ASI Subhash, accompanied by other police personnel, proceeded to the rties were initially counselled and directed to appear at the police post with their land Later that day, further information was received indicating a renewed clash at the same location. The police team returned to AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.03 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM the spot but found sticks, axes, and hammers taken into custody under a recovery memo, and the process was graphed for located at General Hospital, Palwal, where the police collected the Medico L of Laxman and Manoj and referred the injured Vipin, Rahul, and Vinod to a higher medical fa then returned to the City Police Station, where submitted a unidentified persons, all residents or affiliates of According to the Shamlat Deh ownership by one 26.03.2025 disputed land on behalf protestors. returned, accompanied by which were rods. They reportedly attacked the protestors with the intent to kill and fired multiple rounds, including direct shots aimed at which narr and Rahul climbing over walls. protest and claimed that CRM-M-32213-2025 the spot but found no individuals present. However, sticks, axes, and hammers allegedly used in the conflict taken into custody under a recovery memo, and the process was for the evidentiary purposes. Subsequently, the injur located at General Hospital, Palwal, where the police collected the Legal Reports (MLRs). The attending physician noted the absence of Laxman and Manoj and referred the injured Vipin, Rahul, and Vinod to a higher medical facility due to the serious nature of their injuries then returned to the City Police Station, where submitted a written complaint against 18 named individuals and 30 unidentified persons, all residents or affiliates of According to the complainant, villagers had been peacefully protesting on Shamlat Deh land (common village) over the wrongful registration of ownership by one R.C. Agarwal, as reflected in the revenue records. On 26.03.2025, Ashok (son of Raghuveer) allegedly attempted to plough the disputed land on behalf of the said R.C. Agarwal protestors. On 28.03.2025 at around 11:30 AM returned, accompanied by his family members and which were armed with country made pistols, axes, hammers, sticks and iron . They reportedly attacked the protestors with the intent to kill and fired multiple rounds, including direct shots aimed at which narrowly missed. Several protestors, including Rahul sustained grievous injuries and some managed to escape by climbing over walls. The assailants allegedly issued protest and claimed that the aforesaid R.C. Agarwal 2 no individuals present. However, weapons including allegedly used in the conflict were recovered and taken into custody under a recovery memo, and the process was video Subsequently, the injured persons were located at General Hospital, Palwal, where the police collected the ruqqa and . The attending physician noted the absence of Laxman and Manoj and referred the injured Vipin, Rahul, and Vinod to a serious nature of their injuries. The police then returned to the City Police Station, where complainant Lakhanpal against 18 named individuals and 30 unidentified persons, all residents or affiliates of village Patli Khurd. , villagers had been peacefully protesting on over the wrongful registration of , as reflected in the revenue records. On , Ashok (son of Raghuveer) allegedly attempted to plough the of the said R.C. Agarwal but was stopped by around 11:30 AM, the said Ashok allegedly family members and other hired outsiders made pistols, axes, hammers, sticks and iron . They reportedly attacked the protestors with the intent to kill and fired multiple rounds, including direct shots aimed at Vipin, Vinod and Rahul owly missed. Several protestors, including Manoj, Vipin, Vinod and some managed to escape by The assailants allegedly issued threats to end the R.C. Agarwal had promised them a weapons including were recovered and video- ed persons were and . The attending physician noted the absence of Laxman and Manoj and referred the injured Vipin, Rahul, and Vinod to a . The police complainant Lakhanpal against 18 named individuals and 30/40 Patli Khurd. , villagers had been peacefully protesting on over the wrongful registration of , as reflected in the revenue records. On , Ashok (son of Raghuveer) allegedly attempted to plough the but was stopped by the Ashok allegedly hired outsiders made pistols, axes, hammers, sticks and iron . They reportedly attacked the protestors with the intent to kill and fired Vipin, Vinod and Rahul Vinod and some managed to escape by to end the had promised them a AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.03 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM portion of the land attack despite earlier instructions given by the SHO further narrates that after a villager dialed emergency number arrived at the were initially treated at centers due to the multiple eyewitnesses, including for the appropriate legal action against all of allegations, instant FIR under Sections 190, 191(3), 115(2), 351(3) 109(1), 61(2) and investigation ensued. 3. has been falsely impli present at the scene of occurrence on the date and time alleged. instead engaged in his lawful occupation as a shopkeeper in village Usphar, District Mathura (U.P.) the alleged place of incident. Learned counsel has further iterated that even the complainant is no narrated in the complaint are based entirely on hearsay. It is further submitted that no specific or overt act has been attributed to the petitioner in the FIR. Moreover, the prosecution itself alle result of a larger conspiracy orchestrated by one R.C. Aggarwal, yet conspicuously he has not been named or arrayed as an accused in the FIR. This omission calls into question the credibility and fairness of the entire investigation. According to learned counsel, the petitioner alongwith his CRM-M-32213-2025 portion of the land. The situation escalated to a violent and premeditated attack despite earlier instructions given by the SHO further narrates that after a villager dialed emergency number arrived at the scene of occurrence, causing the assailants to flee. The were initially treated at GH Palwal, while centers due to the severity of their injuries multiple eyewitnesses, including Krishna appropriate legal action against all of allegations, instant FIR under Sections 190, 191(3), 115(2), 351(3) 109(1), 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 25 of Arms Act and investigation ensued. Learned counsel for the petitioner has has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question as the petitioner was not present at the scene of occurrence on the date and time alleged. instead engaged in his lawful occupation as a shopkeeper in village Usphar, District Mathura (U.P.) situated approximately 100 kilometers away from the alleged place of incident. Learned counsel has further iterated that even the complainant is not an eyewitness to the alleged occurrence and the facts narrated in the complaint are based entirely on hearsay. It is further submitted that no specific or overt act has been attributed to the petitioner in the FIR. Moreover, the prosecution itself alle result of a larger conspiracy orchestrated by one R.C. Aggarwal, yet conspicuously he has not been named or arrayed as an accused in the FIR. This omission calls into question the credibility and fairness of the entire ation. According to learned counsel, the petitioner alongwith his 3 . The situation escalated to a violent and premeditated attack despite earlier instructions given by the SHO. The complainant further narrates that after a villager dialed emergency number 112, police , causing the assailants to flee. The injured while some referred to advanced medical severity of their injuries. The incident was corroborated by and Satish, and a request was made appropriate legal action against all the involved accused. On these set of allegations, instant FIR under Sections 190, 191(3), 115(2), 351(3) and Section 25 of Arms Act was registered Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner cated into the FIR in question as the petitioner was not present at the scene of occurrence on the date and time alleged. He was instead engaged in his lawful occupation as a shopkeeper in village Usphar, approximately 100 kilometers away from the alleged place of incident. Learned counsel has further iterated that even t an eyewitness to the alleged occurrence and the facts narrated in the complaint are based entirely on hearsay. It is further submitted that no specific or overt act has been attributed to the petitioner in the FIR. Moreover, the prosecution itself alleges that the incident was a result of a larger conspiracy orchestrated by one R.C. Aggarwal, yet conspicuously he has not been named or arrayed as an accused in the FIR. This omission calls into question the credibility and fairness of the entire ation. According to learned counsel, the petitioner alongwith his . The situation escalated to a violent and premeditated complainant , police injured some referred to advanced medical . The incident was corroborated by , and a request was made On these set of allegations, instant FIR under Sections 190, 191(3), 115(2), 351(3), registered that the petitioner cated into the FIR in question as the petitioner was not He was instead engaged in his lawful occupation as a shopkeeper in village Usphar, approximately 100 kilometers away from the alleged place of incident. Learned counsel has further iterated that even t an eyewitness to the alleged occurrence and the facts narrated in the complaint are based entirely on hearsay. It is further submitted that no specific or overt act has been attributed to the petitioner in ges that the incident was a result of a larger conspiracy orchestrated by one R.C. Aggarwal, yet conspicuously he has not been named or arrayed as an accused in the FIR. This omission calls into question the credibility and fairness of the entire ation. According to learned counsel, the petitioner alongwith his AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.03 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM father, brother and other male family members, appears to have been systematically and vindictively targeted causing undue harassment. counsel asserts that the petitioner has a cle accusations. Learned counsel asserts that the in the instant case, the FIR fails to include material facts regarding the conduct of the complainant party which further raised questions about its credibility and fairness. submitted petitioner be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery is ready to join the investigation served by sending counsel that concession of the 4. anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. According to lea are five injured in the alleged occurrence and the grievous injury has been directly attributed to the present petitioner, who is alleged to have inflicted multiple blows with an iron rod on the head of the injured Vinod. Learned State counsel has iterated that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative for the purpose of effective and fair investigation, particularly in view of the recovery of the weapon of offence which is yet to be recovered from the petitioner petitioner is granted the concession of pre CRM-M-32213-2025 father, brother and other male family members, appears to have been systematically and vindictively targeted causing undue harassment. counsel asserts that the petitioner has a cle accusations. Learned counsel asserts that the in the instant case, the FIR fails to include material facts regarding the conduct of the complainant party which further raised questions about its credibility and fairness. submitted by the learned counsel that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner or at his instance. Moreover, the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Furthermore, is ready to join the investigation and hence served by sending him behind the bars. It that the present petition be allowed and the concession of the anticipatory bail. Per contra, 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. According to lea are five injured in the alleged occurrence and the grievous injury has been directly attributed to the present petitioner, who is alleged to have inflicted multiple blows with an iron rod on the head of the injured Vinod. Learned State counsel has iterated that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative for the purpose of effective and fair investigation, particularly in view of the recovery of the weapon of offence which is yet to be recovered from the petitioner. According to learned State counsel, in case the petitioner is granted the concession of pre 4 father, brother and other male family members, appears to have been systematically and vindictively targeted causing undue harassment. Learned counsel asserts that the petitioner has a clean antecedent with no prior accusations. Learned counsel asserts that the in the instant case, the FIR fails to include material facts regarding the conduct of the complainant party which further raised questions about its credibility and fairness. It is next that no recovery is to be effected from the Moreover, the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely of material evidence. Furthermore, the petitioner and hence no useful purpose would be It is lastly submitted by the learned the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be granted the earned 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. According to learned State counsel, there are five injured in the alleged occurrence and the grievous injury has been directly attributed to the present petitioner, who is alleged to have inflicted multiple blows with an iron rod on the head of the injured Vinod. Learned State counsel has iterated that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative for the purpose of effective and fair investigation, particularly in view of the recovery of the weapon of offence which is yet to be recovered . According to learned State counsel, in case the petitioner is granted the concession of pre-arrest, at this stage, it may impede father, brother and other male family members, appears to have been Learned an antecedent with no prior accusations. Learned counsel asserts that the in the instant case, the FIR fails to include material facts regarding the conduct of the complainant party next that no recovery is to be effected from the Moreover, the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely the petitioner no useful purpose would be by the learned be granted the earned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by there are five injured in the alleged occurrence and the grievous injury has been directly attributed to the present petitioner, who is alleged to have inflicted multiple blows with an iron rod on the head of the injured Vinod. Learned State counsel has iterated that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative for the purpose of effective and fair investigation, particularly in view of the recovery of the weapon of offence which is yet to be recovered . According to learned State counsel, in case the arrest, at this stage, it may impede AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.03 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM the ongoing investigation, obstruct recovery and adversely effect the efforts to apprehend the remaining co 5. the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by raising submission in tandem with the learned State counsel. 6. gone through 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Yashwant Patil and another whereof reads as under: CRM-M-32213-2025 the ongoing investigation, obstruct recovery and adversely effect the efforts to apprehend the remaining co-accused. Learned counsel for the complainant has vociferously opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by raising submission in tandem with the learned State counsel. 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 a 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. 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 que 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 curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without 5 the ongoing investigation, obstruct recovery and adversely effect the efforts Learned counsel for the complainant has vociferously opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by raising submission in I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have 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 of material facts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without the ongoing investigation, obstruct recovery and adversely effect the efforts Learned counsel for the complainant has vociferously opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by raising submission in 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 nticipatory 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., (2005) 4 SCC 303 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 933] , “19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to stioned 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 of material facts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.03 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM CRM-M-32213-2025 hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent his disappearance, to maintain law and 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 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 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 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. 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 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 6 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 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 rrest of the accused in a cognizable offence. An interim order restraining arrest, if passed while dealing with an application of the Code will amount to interference in the n, which cannot, 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 umiliating 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, 12) 2 SCC (Cri) 468] , the Supreme Court held as “19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court efor. 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 hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim 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 rrest of the accused in a cognizable offence. An interim order restraining 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 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 [Siddharam , (2011) 1 SCC 694 : other judgments 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 satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court efor. 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 AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.03 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM 8. serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. version put forth by the prosecution, on co-accused, allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and weapons violent and premeditated assault further alleged that during the course of this incident, discharged with the intent to cause harm and create p protestors. CRM-M-32213-2025 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 ca 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 1998 SCC (Cri) 510], it was held that in economic offences, the accused is 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 gra Court has to consider the nature of the offence 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 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 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 court.” As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indu serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. version put forth by the prosecution, on 28.03.2025 accused, allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and i.e. axes, hammers, sticks, and country violent and premeditated assault on the complainant and other villagers. further alleged that during the course of this incident, discharged with the intent to cause harm and create p protestors. The incident resulted in grievous injuries to four individuals 7 213 : (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 : , 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 Court has to consider the nature 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:- ught 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 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, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. As per the 28.03.2025, the petitioner, alongwith accused, allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and armed with deadly mers, sticks, and country-made firearms, launched a on the complainant and other villagers. It is further alleged that during the course of this incident, firearms were discharged with the intent to cause harm and create panic among the grievous injuries to four individuals 213 : (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 ses 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 : , it was held that in economic 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 ught 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 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 bitably, As per the alongwith armed with deadly launched a It is firearms were among the grievous injuries to four individuals, AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.03 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM namely Vipin injuries, including a using an iron rod received three injuries FIR, and the nature of the injuries attributed to him are threatening that the 04 accused are yet to be apprehended petitioner sought the custodial interrogation verification of facts, and to establish the broader conspiracy, if any, behind the occurrence. from which it can be d implicated into the present FIR. It goes without saying that in the instant case, the complainant has categorically stated that the petitioner along with co-accused and as part of an unlawful assembly, acted i common object to inflict multiple injuries upon the complainant party. 9. grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual ri 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 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 CRM-M-32213-2025 Vipin, who sustained seven injuries , including a head injury allegedly inflicted by the present iron rod; Rahul, who sustained three injuries three injuries. The petitioner has been , and the nature of the injuries attributed to him are threatening, reflecting the severity of the alleged act. that the 04 co-accused are currently in judicial custody accused are yet to be apprehended. The petitioner has not yet been recovered, and the sought the custodial interrogation of the petitioner verification of facts, and to establish the broader conspiracy, if any, behind the occurrence. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. It goes without saying that in the instant case, the complainant has categorically stated that the petitioner along with accused and as part of an unlawful assembly, acted i common object to inflict multiple injuries upon the complainant party. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on 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 8 seven injuries; Vinod Kumar, who suffered head injury allegedly inflicted by the present petitioner three injuries; and Manoj, who also has been specifically named in the , and the nature of the injuries attributed to him are serious and life the alleged act. It has come on record accused are currently in judicial custody, while the remaining . The weapon allegedly used by the , and the investigating agency ha of the petitioner for effective recovery, verification of facts, and to establish the broader conspiracy, if any, behind plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, eciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. It goes without saying that in the instant case, the complainant has categorically stated that the petitioner along with 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 a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding ghts 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, there is no material on record to , who suffered six petitioner , who also specifically named in the serious and life- It has come on record remaining weapon allegedly used by the investigating agency has for effective recovery, verification of facts, and to establish the broader conspiracy, if any, behind plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, eciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. It goes without saying that in the instant case, the complainant has categorically stated that the petitioner along with n furtherance of their It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding ghts 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 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 AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.03 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM hold that 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 effec [State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) 9.1. attributed to the victims, the interrogation for a fair and thorough investigation considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual matrix of the case custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective CRM-M-32213-2025 hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. 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. v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) “6. We find force in the submission of 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 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 prot arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those en offences would not conduct themselves as offenders. In view of the gravity of the allegations attributed to the petitioner, the serious nature of injuries sustained by the , the pending recovery of the weapon interrogation for a fair and thorough investigation considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual matrix of the case custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective 9 case is not made out against the petitioner. T 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 tive investigation. In State v. Anil Sharma v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case fective 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 degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.” gravity of the allegations, the specific role serious nature of injuries sustained by the recovery of the weapon, and the necessity of custodial interrogation for a fair and thorough investigation, 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 petitioner is necessary for an effective 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 State v. Anil Sharma , the CBI that custodial interrogation is oriented than questioning a suspect who is well- of the Code. In a case fective 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 ected 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 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 trusted with the task of disinterring the specific role serious nature of injuries sustained by the necessity of custodial this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.03 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. 10. of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. 11. July 03, 202 Ajay CRM-M-32213-2025 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 expres of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 10 investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits 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 investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits sion AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.03 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document