CRM-M-45637-2025 -1- 101 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-45637-2025 Date of Decision: 04.09.2025 SAHIL ALIAS PRINCE MASIH … PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Godara, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. SUBHAS MEHLA , J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNNS, 2023’) seeking grant of pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 57 dated 09.07.2025 under Sections 109, 118(1), 3(5) of BNS registered at Police Station Bhaini Mian Khan, District Gurdaspur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is a delay of 54 days in lodging the abovesaid FIR. He further submits that only simple injury has been attributed to the petitioner and the bail application of the petitioner has been wrongly dismissed by the learned Court below. He also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation. 3. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State and the SEEMA 2025.09.15 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-45637-2025 -2- same is taken on record. 4. Learned State counsel, appearing on advance notice, opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner and contends that the petitioner along with the co-accused intentionally caused injuries with a dattar blow on the right knee of the complainant namely Salinder Singh. He further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for further investigation. Hence, he is not entitled for concession of anticipatory bail. 5. In view of above, since the petitioner along with co-accused with a pre-meditated plan caused severe injuries to the complainant and injuries are declared dangerous to life; petitioner is required for the custodial interrogation, as per the ratio of Law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as “C.B.I. vs. Anil Sharma”, 1997 AIR Supreme Court 3806 , decided on 03.08.1997: ....custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favorable order under Section 438 if the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disintering many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Succession such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre-arrest bail during the time he interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the oustodial 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 task of disintering offences would not conduct themselves as offenders. SEEMA 2025.09.15 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-45637-2025 -3- 6. Hence this Court finds no merit in the present petition and the same stands dismissed. (SUBHAS MEHLA) 04.09.2025 JUDGE Sima Sima Sima Sima Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No SEEMA 2025.09.15 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document