IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 106 CRM-M-39061-2025 Date of decision: 23.07.2025 Rajinder Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. A.K. Walia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab. Ms. Poonam Verma, Advocate for the complainant. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya 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 No.99 dated 09.05.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 (Sections 126(2) and 118(2) of BNS, 2023 added lateron) at Police Station Sadar Dhuri, District Sangrur. 2. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that on 07.05.2025 complainant Gurman Singh at about 7:00 AM after playing came back to his house and was taking milk and then accused Rajinder Singh alongwith Tek Singh, Harshanvir Singh started throwing stones at the gate of his house and hurled abuses, upon which his father Gurwinder Singh came out from the house. Complainant-Gurman Singh also came out, then Rajinder Singh, who was holding the iron dah, hit the complainant on his hand and Tek Singh also hit him on his right eye with stick. Another co-accused Harshanvir Singh also hit the complainant with stick. One Randeep Kaur who was accompanying them, also dragged Gurman Singh by holding his hair. Thereafter, grandmother of the complainant Gurman Singh came there to NAVEEN NAGPAL 2025.07.23 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh CRM-M-39061-2025 P a g e | 2 rescue him, but the accused persons caused beatings to her also. Thereafter, accused Rajinder Singh went in fields of the complainant and surrounded the grandfather of the complainant and abused him. Complainant further stated that the reason of grudge was that two days prior to the date of incident, the petitioner was hurling abuses to them and then we informed Sarpanch of the village, who assured that he will make the petitioner understand. Even after advising by Sarpanch, the petitioner used to hurl abuses to them after drinking liquor. He further stated that thereafter on 07.05.2025, the petitioner alongwith other co-accused caused beating to them and upon gathering of villagers they ran away from the spot. The complainant further narrates that his father took him to the house and thereafter after arranging the vehicle took him to the Civil Hospital, Dhuri and got admitted him alongwith his grandmother. On these set of allegations, instant FIR under Sections Sections 115(2), 118(1), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 (Sections 126(2) and 118(2) of BNS, 2023 added lateron) was registered and investigation ensued. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question as the FIR was registered on 09.05.2025 i.e. after two days of alleged occurrence. Learned counsel has further iterated that even the complainant party had attacked the petitioner and his family, caused injuries to him and his wife Randeep Kaur by attacking them inside their house. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that due to said incident the petitioner alongwith his wife got admitted at Civil Hospital, Dhuri on 07.05.2025 at 10:10 PM and were medico-legally examined. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has suffered seven injuries and his wife Randeep Kaur suffered two injuries and the same are described in their MLRs NAVEEN NAGPAL 2025.07.23 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh CRM-M-39061-2025 P a g e | 3 According to learned counsel, the petitioner alongwith his wife and other persons, 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 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, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be granted the concession of the anticipatory bail. 4. 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 learned State counsel, there are two persons injured in the alleged occurrence and the grievous injuries have been directly attributed to the present petitioner, who is alleged to have inflicted injuries on the hand of the complainant-Gurman Singh. 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 fact that the weapon of offence is yet to be recovered from the petitioner. According to learned State counsel, in case the petitioner is granted the concession of pre-arrest, at this stage, it may impede the ongoing NAVEEN NAGPAL 2025.07.23 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh CRM-M-39061-2025 P a g e | 4 investigation, obstruct recovery and adversely effect the efforts to apprehend the remaining co-accused. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant has vociferously opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by raising submissions in tandem with the learned State counsel. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case. 7. 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 SLP(Crl) No.1125-2022, relevant 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 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 xxx xxx xxx xxx 75. Observing that the arrest is a part of the investigation intended to secure several purposes, in Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B. [Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B., (2005) 4 SCC 303 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 933] , it was held as under : (SCC p. 313, para 19) “19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes. The accused may have to be 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 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 NAVEEN NAGPAL 2025.07.23 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh CRM-M-39061-2025 P a g e | 5 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 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 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 Section 438 of the 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 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 [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] and other judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai 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 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 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 NAVEEN NAGPAL 2025.07.23 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh CRM-M-39061-2025 P a g e | 6 78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain [Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2 SCC 105 : 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, 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:- “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.” 8. 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 is that on 07.05.2025 when complainant Gurman Singh reached his home at about 7:00 AM the accused Rajinder Singh alongwith Tek Singh, Harshanvir Singh came there and started throwing stones at the gate of his house and hurled abuses, upon which his father Gurwinder Singh came out from the house. Complainant-Gurman Singh also came out, then the petitioner, who was holding the iron dah, hit the complainant on his hand and Tek Singh also hit him on his right eye with stick. A perusal of the FIR also reveals that another co-accused Harshanvir Singh also hit the complainant with stick and one Randeep Kaur who was accompanying them, also dragged the complainant by holding his hair. NAVEEN NAGPAL 2025.07.23 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh CRM-M-39061-2025 P a g e | 7 Thereafter, grandmother of the complainant Gurman Singh came there to rescue him, but the accused persons caused beatings to her also. Thereafter, accused Rajinder Singh went in fields of the complainant and surrounded the grandfather of the complainant and abused him. The incident resulted in grievous injuries to the complainant Gurman Singh, who sustained two injuries and his grandmother namely Balvir Kaur, who sustained simple injuries. The petitioner has been 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. The weapon allegedly used by the petitioner has not yet been recovered, and the investigating agency has sought the custodial interrogation of the petitioner for effective recovery, 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 co-accused and as part of an unlawful assembly, acted in furtherance of their common object to inflict multiple injuries upon the complainant party. 9. 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 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 NAVEEN NAGPAL 2025.07.23 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh CRM-M-39061-2025 P a g e | 8 hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be established a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State v. Anil Sharma [State 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 qualitatively more elicitation-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 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 entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.” 9.1. In view of the gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioner, the serious nature of injuries sustained by the complainant, the pending 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 investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. NAVEEN NAGPAL 2025.07.23 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh CRM-M-39061-2025 P a g e | 9 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE July 23, 2025 Naveen Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No NAVEEN NAGPAL 2025.07.23 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh