CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 211 Ratan Singh State of Haryana CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of No.211 dated Sections Hisar, District Hisar. 2. case was registered on the basis of a statement resident of Mahavir Colony, Hisar. exists between his family and Surender son of Bahadur, resident of Mahavir Colony, Hisar. criminal act at his residence. Pursuant to this conspiracy, at approximately 3:00 P.M., vehicles i.e. another small white -33202-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ratan Singh V/s State of Haryana CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. S.K. Saini, Advocate and Mr. Pankaj Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana. Ms. Aakriti Mittal, 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 05.04.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115, 190(2), 333 of BNS Act, Hisar, District Hisar. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that the case was registered on the basis of a statement resident of Mahavir Colony, Hisar. According to the complainant, a dispute exists between his family and Surender son of Bahadur, resident of Mahavir Colony, Hisar. On 03.04.2025, Surender allegedly conspired to commit a inal act at his residence. Pursuant to this conspiracy, at approximately 3:00 P.M., 06 individuals armed with sticks and iron rods arrived in two i.e. a Scorpio bearing registration number HR 51BK another small white-colored vehicle. Thes 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-33202-2025 Date of decision: 10.07.202 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL S.K. Saini, Advocate and Mr. Pankaj Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana. Ms. Aakriti Mittal, Advocate for the complainant. ***** 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 109(1), 115, 190(2), 333 of BNS Act, at Police Station HTM, The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that the present case was registered on the basis of a statement made by Bablu son of Rajesh, According to the complainant, a dispute exists between his family and Surender son of Bahadur, resident of Mahavir On 03.04.2025, Surender allegedly conspired to commit a inal act at his residence. Pursuant to this conspiracy, at approximately individuals armed with sticks and iron rods arrived in two a Scorpio bearing registration number HR 51BK-3600 and colored vehicle. These individuals launched an attack on .2025 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 HTM, present made by Bablu son of Rajesh, According to the complainant, a dispute exists between his family and Surender son of Bahadur, resident of Mahavir On 03.04.2025, Surender allegedly conspired to commit a inal act at his residence. Pursuant to this conspiracy, at approximately individuals armed with sticks and iron rods arrived in two 3600 and e individuals launched an attack on AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.10 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- the father his shop located near the Community Centre in Mahavir Colony, with the intent to kill him. i.e. Rohit (son of Surender), Ankur alias Santi (son of Devi Lal), Rattan, and Harish. The remaining two attackers are currently unidentified. All six individuals allegedly inflicted injuries on clear intention to cau road. Following the incident, the brother and mother Government Hospital, Hisar. The complainant became aware upon reviewing CCTV footage. Based on this statement, the duly registered 3. dispute in the present matter is between the Rohit, who are closely related. It has been further iterated that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the said dispute and has been falsely implicated in the present FIR merely on the basis of his relationship with Ratan Singh, who is the brother further iterated that the Bahadur Singh had three sons namely Rajesh, Rohtash and Surender Singh and a family settlement dated 2306.2024 was executed with regard to division of the an the sons namely Rajesh objected to the terms of the said settlement and deliberately refrained from signing the same. According to learned counsel, the instant FIR is a clear outcome of prior enmity arising from the said property dispute and is counter blast to the FIR No.177 dated 15.03.2025 registered under Sections 60(a), 351(3), 333, 324(3), 191(3), 190, 115 -33202-2025 of the complainant namely Rajesh Kumar, while he was present at his shop located near the Community Centre in Mahavir Colony, with the intent to kill him. The complainant identified four of the assailants by Rohit (son of Surender), Ankur alias Santi (son of Devi Lal), Rattan, and Harish. The remaining two attackers are currently unidentified. All six individuals allegedly inflicted injuries on clear intention to cause his death which resulted Following the incident, the brother and mother namely Murthi Devi, admitted the injured Rajesh Kumar to the Government Hospital, Hisar. The complainant became aware upon reviewing CCTV footage. Based on this statement, the duly registered and investigation ensued. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the principal dispute in the present matter is between the Rohit, who are closely related. It has been further iterated that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the said dispute and has been falsely implicated in the present FIR merely on the basis of his relationship with Ratan Singh, who is the brother-in-law of co further iterated that the Bahadur Singh had three sons namely Rajesh, Rohtash and Surender Singh and a family settlement dated 2306.2024 was executed with regard to division of the an the sons namely Rajesh objected to the terms of the said settlement and deliberately refrained from signing the same. According to learned counsel, the instant FIR is a clear outcome of prior enmity arising from the said property dispute and is counter blast to the FIR No.177 dated 15.03.2025 registered under Sections 60(a), 351(3), 333, 324(3), 191(3), 190, 115 2 Rajesh Kumar, while he was present at his shop located near the Community Centre in Mahavir Colony, with the The complainant identified four of the assailants by name Rohit (son of Surender), Ankur alias Santi (son of Devi Lal), Rattan, and Harish. The remaining two attackers are currently unidentified. All six individuals allegedly inflicted injuries on the person of Rajesh Kumar with a which resulted him in collapsing on the Following the incident, the brother of the complainant namely Pawan Murthi Devi, admitted the injured Rajesh Kumar to the Government Hospital, Hisar. The complainant became aware of the incident upon reviewing CCTV footage. Based on this statement, the instant FIR was Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the principal dispute in the present matter is between the complainant and co-accused Rohit, who are closely related. It has been further iterated that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the said dispute and has been falsely implicated in the present FIR merely on the basis of his relationship with law of co-accused Rohit. It has been further iterated that the Bahadur Singh had three sons namely Rajesh, Rohtash and Surender Singh and a family settlement dated 2306.2024 was executed with regard to division of the ancestral property. However, one of the sons namely Rajesh objected to the terms of the said settlement and deliberately refrained from signing the same. According to learned counsel, the instant FIR is a clear outcome of prior enmity arising from the said property dispute and is counter blast to the FIR No.177 dated 15.03.2025 registered under Sections 60(a), 351(3), 333, 324(3), 191(3), 190, 115 IPC at Rajesh Kumar, while he was present at his shop located near the Community Centre in Mahavir Colony, with the name Rohit (son of Surender), Ankur alias Santi (son of Devi Lal), Rattan, and Harish. The remaining two attackers are currently unidentified. All six Rajesh Kumar with a in collapsing on the Pawan Murthi Devi, admitted the injured Rajesh Kumar to the of the incident FIR was Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the principal accused Rohit, who are closely related. It has been further iterated that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the said dispute and has been falsely implicated in the present FIR merely on the basis of his relationship with accused Rohit. It has been further iterated that the Bahadur Singh had three sons namely Rajesh, Rohtash and Surender Singh and a family settlement dated 2306.2024 was cestral property. However, one of the sons namely Rajesh objected to the terms of the said settlement and deliberately refrained from signing the same. According to learned counsel, the instant FIR is a clear outcome of prior enmity arising from the said property dispute and is counter blast to the FIR No.177 dated 15.03.2025 IPC at AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.10 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- Police Station HTM, Hisar. It has been further contended by the learned counsel that the complainant a undue pressure on the petitioner and co the earlier FIR and the instant FIR has thus been lodged with mala fide intention. Learned counsel asserts that the police have not conducte and impartial investigation and the inquiry conducted so far is not only incomplete but also tainted with bias. counsel that no recovery is to be effected from the instance. punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Furthermore, the investigation him behind the bars. present petition be allowed and the the anticipatory 4. anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. Raising submissions in tandem with the reply filed on behalf of Tanuj Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hisar, learned State counsel sub present petitioner, unlawfully trespassed into the residence of the victim, who is their paternal uncle aged 50 years. The accused are alleged to have brutally assaulted the victim using wooden sticks (dandas). CCTV footage clearly reflects that the victim was being dragged from one place to another, reflecting the degree of violence and cruelty inflicted upon him. It is further submitted that the petitioner and co -33202-2025 Police Station HTM, Hisar. It has been further contended by the learned counsel that the complainant alongwith his family members is exerting undue pressure on the petitioner and co-accused to compel them to withdraw the earlier FIR and the instant FIR has thus been lodged with mala fide intention. Learned counsel asserts that the police have not conducte and impartial investigation and the inquiry conducted so far is not only incomplete but also tainted with bias. It is next submitted 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 necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Furthermore, the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be serv him behind the bars. It is lastly submitted present petition be allowed and the petitioner anticipatory bail. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of ticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. Raising submissions in tandem with the reply filed on behalf of Tanuj Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hisar, learned State counsel submits that the accused persons, including the present petitioner, unlawfully trespassed into the residence of the victim, who is their paternal uncle aged 50 years. The accused are alleged to have brutally assaulted the victim using wooden sticks (dandas). CCTV footage clearly reflects that the victim was being dragged from one place to another, reflecting the degree of violence and cruelty inflicted upon him. It is further submitted that the petitioner and co 3 Police Station HTM, Hisar. It has been further contended by the learned longwith his family members is exerting accused to compel them to withdraw the earlier FIR and the instant FIR has thus been lodged with mala fide intention. Learned counsel asserts that the police have not conducted a fair and impartial investigation and the inquiry conducted so far is not only It is next submitted by the learned that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner or at ustodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to join no useful purpose would be served by sending lastly submitted by the learned counsel that petitioner be granted the concession of earned State counsel has opposed the grant of ticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. Raising submissions in tandem with the reply filed on behalf of Tanuj Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police, mits that the accused persons, including the present petitioner, unlawfully trespassed into the residence of the victim, who is their paternal uncle aged 50 years. The accused are alleged to have brutally assaulted the victim using wooden sticks (dandas). Furthermore the CCTV footage clearly reflects that the victim was being dragged from one place to another, reflecting the degree of violence and cruelty inflicted upon him. It is further submitted that the petitioner and co-accused have been Police Station HTM, Hisar. It has been further contended by the learned longwith his family members is exerting accused to compel them to withdraw the earlier FIR and the instant FIR has thus been lodged with mala fide d a fair and impartial investigation and the inquiry conducted so far is not only by the learned or at his ustodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the the petitioner is ready to join ed by sending that the concession of earned State counsel has opposed the grant of ticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. Raising submissions in tandem with the reply filed on behalf of Tanuj Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police, mits that the accused persons, including the present petitioner, unlawfully trespassed into the residence of the victim, who is their paternal uncle aged 50 years. The accused are alleged to have Furthermore the CCTV footage clearly reflects that the victim was being dragged from one place to another, reflecting the degree of violence and cruelty inflicted upon accused have been AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.10 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- specificall them are grave and serious in nature. Given the severity of the offence and the existing enmity between the parties, there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioner may abscond or on bail. essential to ascertain the identities and roles of two unidentified individuals who were also involved in the commission of the offence a at the scene of the occurrence. 5. the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by raising submission in tandem with the learned State counsel. 6. gone through the available record of the case. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Yashwant Patil and another whereof reads as under: -33202-2025 specifically and unequivocally named in the FIR and the allegations against them are grave and serious in nature. Given the severity of the offence and the existing enmity between the parties, there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioner may abscond or tamper with the evidence if he is enlarged Furthermore, custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is essential to ascertain the identities and roles of two unidentified individuals who were also involved in the commission of the offence a at the scene of the occurrence. 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 discover facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the 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 4 y and unequivocally named in the FIR and the allegations against them are grave and serious in nature. Given the severity of the offence and the existing enmity between the parties, there exists a substantial likelihood tamper with the evidence if he is enlarged Furthermore, custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is essential to ascertain the identities and roles of two unidentified individuals who were also involved in the commission of the offence and were present Learned counsel for the complainant has vociferously opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by raising submission in d 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 cused 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 y and unequivocally named in the FIR and the allegations against them are grave and serious in nature. Given the severity of the offence and the existing enmity between the parties, there exists a substantial likelihood tamper with the evidence if he is enlarged Furthermore, custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is essential to ascertain the identities and roles of two unidentified individuals nd were present 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 y 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 cused 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 AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.10 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -33202-2025 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 information 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 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 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 a 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 or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. 77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharasht (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] and other judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar [Jai Praka (2012) 4 SCC 379 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 468] under : (SCC p. 386, para 19) 5 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 cure 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 e, 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 rfere 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 the Code will amount to interference in the investigation, which cannot, at any rate, be done under Section 438 of the Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra ngappa 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 ve been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating 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, (2012) 4 SCC 379 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 468] , the Supreme Court held as 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 cure 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 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 e, 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 rfere 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 the Code will amount to interference in the of the Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra ngappa 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 nd 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 ve been made only with the object of injuring [Siddharam , (2011) 1 SCC 694 : and 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 AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.10 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 8. serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. As per the version put forth by the prosecution, on -33202-2025 “19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting 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 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 applicati 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 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, indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. As per the version put forth by the prosecution, on 6 “19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are 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 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 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:- . 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 As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. As per the version put forth by the prosecution, on the alleged day of occurrence, the “19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are 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 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 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 . 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 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 , the AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.10 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- petitioner and armed with deadly weapons on the injured that the injuries sustained by the victim are of a grievous nature and dangerous to life. perpetrated has been vividly captured in the video footage submitted to the Investigating Officer. The said footage clearly reveals that the accused persons, including the present petition the victim subjected him to a violent and inhumane assault using wooden sticks (dandas). from one location to another within the premises, reflecting the extreme cruelty and lack of regard for human dignity with which the act was committed. amounts to a targeted and premeditated ac vulnerable family member, carried out in broad daylight and within the sanctity of his own home. nature of the injuries attributed to him are reflecting the severity of the alleged act. 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 co in furtherance of their common object to inflict multiple injuries upon the complainant party. -33202-2025 , alongwith co-accused, allegedly armed with deadly weapons launched a violent and premeditated assault injured. A duly constituted Medical Board has unequivocally opined that the injuries sustained by the victim are of a grievous nature and us to life. The sheer brutality with which the alleged offence was perpetrated has been vividly captured in the video footage submitted to the Investigating Officer. The said footage clearly reveals that the accused persons, including the present petitioner, unlawfully entered the residence of the victim who is their paternal uncle and a man above 50 years of age subjected him to a violent and inhumane assault using wooden sticks The footage further evidences the victim being forcibly dragge from one location to another within the premises, reflecting the extreme cruelty and lack of regard for human dignity with which the act was committed. The incident does not merely reflect a physical assault but amounts to a targeted and premeditated ac vulnerable family member, carried out in broad daylight and within the sanctity of his own home. The petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR nature of the injuries attributed to him are reflecting the severity of the alleged act. 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 he instant case, the complainant has categorically stated that the 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. 7 accused, allegedly formed an unlawful assembly launched a violent and premeditated assault A duly constituted Medical Board has unequivocally opined that the injuries sustained by the victim are of a grievous nature and The sheer brutality with which the alleged offence was perpetrated has been vividly captured in the video footage submitted to the Investigating Officer. The said footage clearly reveals that the accused er, unlawfully entered the residence of who is their paternal uncle and a man above 50 years of age and subjected him to a violent and inhumane assault using wooden sticks The footage further evidences the victim being forcibly dragge from one location to another within the premises, reflecting the extreme cruelty and lack of regard for human dignity with which the act was The incident does not merely reflect a physical assault but amounts to a targeted and premeditated act of aggression against a vulnerable family member, carried out in broad daylight and within the specifically named in the FIR, and the nature of the injuries attributed to him are serious and life-threatening reflecting the severity of the alleged act. 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 he instant case, the complainant has categorically stated that the accused and as part of an unlawful assembly, acted in furtherance of their common object to inflict multiple injuries upon the formed an unlawful assembly launched a violent and premeditated assault A duly constituted Medical Board has unequivocally opined that the injuries sustained by the victim are of a grievous nature and The sheer brutality with which the alleged offence was perpetrated has been vividly captured in the video footage submitted to the Investigating Officer. The said footage clearly reveals that the accused er, unlawfully entered the residence of and subjected him to a violent and inhumane assault using wooden sticks The footage further evidences the victim being forcibly dragged from one location to another within the premises, reflecting the extreme cruelty and lack of regard for human dignity with which the act was The incident does not merely reflect a physical assault but t of aggression against a vulnerable family member, carried out in broad daylight and within the , and the threatening, 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 he instant case, the complainant has categorically stated that the accused and as part of an unlawful assembly, acted in furtherance of their common object to inflict multiple injuries upon the AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.10 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 9. 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 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 hold that material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be established a reasonable basis appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. [State v. Anil Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) -33202-2025 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 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 ear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. 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 CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is ensconced with a favourable order under like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders. 8 ng 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 the society. It is imperative that every person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding ear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to 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. Anil Sharma 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 like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation 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.” ng 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 ; 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 ear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily State v. Anil Sharma , the “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is well- of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous 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 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 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 AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.10 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 9.1. nature of the injuries, the close familial relationship between the parties which aggravates the breach of trust, and the overtly violent conduct of the accused as reflected in the available evidence, this Cou ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the petitioner. bail at this stage would not only undermine the administration of justice but may also embolden the accused and pose a threat to the safety and well being of the victim and other witnesses. allegations injuries sustained by the victims for a fair and thorough i 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 inve The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. 10. of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. 11. July 10, 202 Ajay -33202-2025 In view of the seriousness of the allegations, the dangerous nature of the injuries, the close familial relationship between the parties which aggravates the breach of trust, and the overtly violent conduct of the accused as reflected in the available evidence, this Cou ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the petitioner. bail at this stage would not only undermine the administration of justice but may also embolden the accused and pose a threat to the safety and well ng of the victim and other witnesses. allegations, the specific role attributed to the injuries sustained by the victims and the 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 inve 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, sha , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 9 seriousness of the allegations, the dangerous nature of the injuries, the close familial relationship between the parties which aggravates the breach of trust, and the overtly violent conduct of the accused as reflected in the available evidence, this Court finds no compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the petitioner. Granting bail at this stage would not only undermine the administration of justice but may also embolden the accused and pose a threat to the safety and well ng of the victim and other witnesses. In view of the gravity of the the specific role attributed to the petitioner, the serious nature of and the necessity of custodial interrogation 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 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 seriousness of the allegations, the dangerous nature of the injuries, the close familial relationship between the parties which aggravates the breach of trust, and the overtly violent conduct of the rt finds no compelling Granting bail at this stage would not only undermine the administration of justice but may also embolden the accused and pose a threat to the safety and well- gravity of the serious nature of necessity of custodial interrogation 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 stigation & to unravel the truth. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.10 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document