CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 215 Sachin State of Haryana CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of No.123 dated Sections 109(1) of the Arms Act, 2. 28.03.2025 information from the Palwal control room regarding a violent altercation in the village Patli Khurd ASI Subhash, accompanied by other police personnel, proceeded to the location in a government vehicle. Upon initially counselled and directed to appear at the police post with their land ownership documents. regard to further -45350-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH V/s State of Haryana CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, 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 109(1), 115, 190, 191(3), 351(3), 61 of BNS, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station City Palwal, District Palwal. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that o 28.03.2025, ASI Subhash, while present at the police post, received nformation 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 initially counselled and directed to appear at the police post with their land ownership documents. Later that day, further information was received regard to further clash at the same location. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-45350-2025 Date of decision: 10.09.202 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana. Mr. KDS Hooda, 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 , 115, 190, 191(3), 351(3), 61 of BNS, 2023 and Section 25 City Palwal, District Palwal. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that o , ASI Subhash, while present at the police post, received nformation from the Palwal 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 the parties were initially counselled and directed to appear at the police post with their land Later that day, further information was received with clash at the same location. As the police arrived on the spot .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 , 115, 190, 191(3), 351(3), 61 of BNS, 2023 and Section 25 The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that on , ASI Subhash, while present at the police post, received an nformation from the Palwal control room regarding a violent altercation in . Responding promptly, ASI Subhash, accompanied by other police personnel, proceeded to the parties were initially counselled and directed to appear at the police post with their land with the spot AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.10 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- but found hammers custody vide a evidentiary purposes. General Hospital, Palwal, where the police collected the Legal Reports (MLRs) occurrence, t Vinod to a higher medical facility Police Station, where written complaint persons, all residents or affiliates of petitioner) protesting on registration of ownership by one records. On plough the disputed land on behalf stopped by Ashok allegedly returned, accompanied hired persons who sticks and iron rods of the complainant namely Vipin which crossed very close to his right ear. Accused Rahul fired a shot at Vinod but Sachin (petitioner herein), with Rahul but attacked the protestors with the Several protestors, including -45350-2025 but found no one present. However, the weapons including sticks, axes, and allegedly used in the conflict vide a recovery memo and the process was evidentiary purposes. Subsequently, the injured persons were located at General Hospital, Palwal, where the police collected the eports (MLRs). On account of the injuries sustained during the occurrence, the attending physician referred the injured Vipin, Rahul, a Vinod to a higher medical facility. The police then returned to the City Police Station, where the complainant written complaint against 18 named individuals and 30 persons, all residents or affiliates of village petitioner). According to the complainant protesting on the Shamlat Deh land (common village) registration of ownership by one R.C. Agarwal records. On 26.03.2025, accused Ashok plough the disputed land on behalf of the stopped by the protestors. On 28.03.2025 Ashok allegedly returned, accompanied persons who were armed with country sticks and iron rods. Thereafter, accused Ashok fired a bullet on the brother of the complainant namely Vipin which crossed very close to his right ear. Accused Rahul fired a shot at Vinod but Sachin (petitioner herein), with the country made pistol, fired a shot Rahul but that shot narrowly missed him attacked the protestors with the intention Several protestors, including Manoj, Vipin 2 weapons including sticks, axes, and allegedly used in the conflict were recovered and taken into recovery memo and the process was video-graphed for tly, the injured persons were located at General Hospital, Palwal, where the police collected the ruqa and Medico On account of the injuries sustained during the he attending physician referred the injured Vipin, Rahul, a The police then returned to the City complainant namely Lakhanpal submitted a against 18 named individuals and 30/40 unidentified village Patli Khurd (including the complainant, the villagers had been peacefully (common village) over the wrongful R.C. Agarwal, as reflected in the revenu Ashok s/o Raghuveer allegedly tried of the aforesaid R.C. Agarwal but was 28.03.2025, at around 11:30 AM, the said Ashok allegedly returned, accompanied by his family members and other country made pistols, axes, hammers, ccused Ashok fired a bullet on the brother of the complainant namely Vipin which crossed very close to his right ear. Accused Rahul fired a shot at Vinod but he had a narrow escape. Accused country made pistol, fired a shot him. Thereafter, all the accused intention to kill and fired multiple rounds Vipin, Vinod and Rahul sustained weapons including sticks, axes, and were recovered and taken into the tly, the injured persons were located at edico On account of the injuries sustained during the he attending physician referred the injured Vipin, Rahul, and The police then returned to the City submitted a 40 unidentified (including the villagers had been peacefully over the wrongful , as reflected in the revenue tried to but was the said other made pistols, axes, hammers, ccused Ashok fired a bullet on the brother of the complainant namely Vipin which crossed very close to his right ear. had a narrow escape. Accused country made pistol, fired a shot at . Thereafter, all the accused to kill and fired multiple rounds. sustained AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.10 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- grievous injuries The assailants allegedly issued the aforesaid situation escalated to a violent and premeditated attack despite earlier instructions given by the SHO villager dialed emergenc occurrence at GH Palwal severity of their injuries eyewitnesses, including appropriate legal action against all allegations, instant FIR was registered and investigation ensued. 3. bare perusal of the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the FIR itself is based on hearsay information as the complainant admittedly was not present place of alleged occurrence. Furthermore, no independent injured witness has supported the prosecution version which highly improbable. that the petitioner fired at recovered from the spot. Even otherwise, the injuries Rahul are simple in nature and not learned counsel, the petitioner has been roped in only on the disclosure statement of co him. Moreover, the statement under Section 180 of BNSS by injured Rahul is contradictory and not supported by any medical or forensic evidence. -45350-2025 grievous injuries and some managed to escape by climbing over The assailants allegedly issued threats to end the protest and cla the aforesaid R.C. Agarwal had promised them a portion of the land situation escalated to a violent and premeditated attack despite earlier instructions given by the SHO. The complainant villager dialed emergency number 112, occurrence on which all the accused fled Palwal, while some referred to advanced medical centers due to the severity of their injuries. The incident was corroborated eyewitnesses, including Krishna and Satish appropriate legal action against all the involved accused. allegations, instant FIR was registered and investigation ensued. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that bare perusal of the present FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the FIR itself is based on hearsay information as the complainant admittedly was not present place of alleged occurrence. Furthermore, no independent injured witness has supported the prosecution version which highly improbable. It has been further submitted that though it is alleged that the petitioner fired at injured Rahul but no empty cartridge was recovered from the spot. Even otherwise, the injuries Rahul are simple in nature and not attributed learned counsel, the petitioner has been roped in only on the disclosure statement of co-accused, without any specific role of inflicting injuries to him. Moreover, the statement under Section 180 of BNSS by injured Rahul adictory and not supported by any medical or forensic evidence. 3 and some managed to escape by climbing over the walls. to end the protest and claimed that R.C. Agarwal had promised them a portion of the land. The situation escalated to a violent and premeditated attack despite earlier complainant further alleged that after a , the police arrived at the scene d. The injured were initially treated some referred to advanced medical centers due to the . The incident was corroborated by multiple Satish, and a request was made for the involved accused. On these set of allegations, instant FIR was registered and investigation ensued. he petitioner has iterated that from the FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the FIR itself is based on hearsay information as the complainant admittedly was not present at the place of alleged occurrence. Furthermore, no independent injured witness has supported the prosecution version which makes the prosecution story It has been further submitted that though it is alleged Rahul but no empty cartridge was recovered from the spot. Even otherwise, the injuries sustained to injured attributed to the petitioner. According to learned counsel, the petitioner has been roped in only on the disclosure accused, without any specific role of inflicting injuries to him. Moreover, the statement under Section 180 of BNSS by injured Rahul adictory and not supported by any medical or forensic evidence. walls. imed that . The situation escalated to a violent and premeditated attack despite earlier that after a of injured were initially treated some referred to advanced medical centers due to the by multiple the On these set of from the FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the FIR itself is based on at the place of alleged occurrence. Furthermore, no independent injured witness the prosecution story It has been further submitted that though it is alleged Rahul but no empty cartridge was injured etitioner. According to learned counsel, the petitioner has been roped in only on the disclosure accused, without any specific role of inflicting injuries to him. Moreover, the statement under Section 180 of BNSS by injured Rahul adictory and not supported by any medical or forensic evidence. It AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.10 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- has been argued that result of a larger conspiracy orchestrated by one R.C. Aggarwal, yet he has not been named or arrayed as an accu counsel has emphasized that the co been granted the concession of bail by the Court below as well as by this Court and hence role or recovery from anticipatory bail the investigation him behind the bars. instant petition is entreated for. 4. anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. way of affidavit of Manoj Verma, HPS, Deputy Superinendent of Police, Palwal on behalf of State of Haryana filed in Court today, learned State counsel submits that petitioner of having fired at Furthermore, the statement of injured under Section 180 of BNSS directly implicates the petitioner. According to learned State counsel, the plea of false implication is an afterthou iterated that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is purpose of emphasized that arrest, at this stage, it may impede the ongoing investigation and adversely effect the efforts to apprehend the remaining co -45350-2025 has been argued that the prosecution itself alleges that the incident was a result of a larger conspiracy orchestrated by one R.C. Aggarwal, yet he has not been named or arrayed as an accu counsel has emphasized that the co-accused of the petitioner have already been granted the concession of bail by the Court below as well as by this Court and hence on the grounds of parity as well as absence of any direct ole or recovery from the petitioner, he anticipatory bail. Learned counsel asserts that the the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the basis of aforesaid submissions, the grant of instant petition is entreated for. 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. Referring to reply dated 08.09.2025 by way of affidavit of Manoj Verma, HPS, Deputy Superinendent of Police, Palwal on behalf of State of Haryana filed in Court today, learned State counsel submits that there are specific and direct allegations against th petitioner of having fired at injured Rahul which narrowly missed him. Furthermore, the statement of injured under Section 180 of BNSS directly implicates the petitioner. According to learned State counsel, the plea of false implication is an afterthought. Learned State counsel has iterated that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is purpose of recovery of country made pistol emphasized that in case the petitioner is granted the concessi arrest, at this stage, it may impede the ongoing investigation and adversely effect the efforts to apprehend the remaining co 4 the prosecution itself alleges that the incident was a result of a larger conspiracy orchestrated by one R.C. Aggarwal, yet he has not been named or arrayed as an accused in the instant FIR. Learned accused of the petitioner have already been granted the concession of bail by the Court below as well as by this on the grounds of parity as well as absence of any direct , he deserves the concession of Learned counsel asserts that the petitioner is ready to join no useful purpose would be served by sending of aforesaid submissions, the grant of earned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by Referring to reply dated 08.09.2025 by way of affidavit of Manoj Verma, HPS, Deputy Superinendent of Police, Palwal on behalf of State of Haryana filed in Court today, learned State there are specific and direct allegations against th Rahul which narrowly missed him. Furthermore, the statement of injured under Section 180 of BNSS directly implicates the petitioner. According to learned State counsel, the plea of Learned State counsel has further iterated that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the recovery of country made pistol and fair investigation. He has in case the petitioner is granted the concession of pre arrest, at this stage, it may impede the ongoing investigation and adversely effect the efforts to apprehend the remaining co-accused. Accordingly, a the prosecution itself alleges that the incident was a result of a larger conspiracy orchestrated by one R.C. Aggarwal, yet he has Learned accused of the petitioner have already been granted the concession of bail by the Court below as well as by this on the grounds of parity as well as absence of any direct deserves the concession of petitioner is ready to join no useful purpose would be served by sending of aforesaid submissions, the grant of earned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by Referring to reply dated 08.09.2025 by way of affidavit of Manoj Verma, HPS, Deputy Superinendent of Police, Palwal on behalf of State of Haryana filed in Court today, learned State there are specific and direct allegations against the Rahul which narrowly missed him. Furthermore, the statement of injured under Section 180 of BNSS directly implicates the petitioner. According to learned State counsel, the plea of further for the He has on of pre- arrest, at this stage, it may impede the ongoing investigation and adversely Accordingly, a AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.10 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- prayer has been made for the facilitate effective 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: -45350-2025 prayer has been made for the dismissal facilitate effective investigation into the alleged offence. 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 counse 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 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 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 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 connectio 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 5 dismissal of the instant petition in order to investigation into the alleged offence. 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 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 al facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may 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 information which may lead to recovery of 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 leading to discovery of material facts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without order to 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 al facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the the material so far information which may lead to recovery of 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] , “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 n 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 AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.10 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -45350-2025 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. T 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 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 applica 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 antic 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 Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (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 Prakash Singh (2012) 4 SCC 379 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 468] under : (SCC p. 386, para 19) “19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail i 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 N 6 drance 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 rt 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 of 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 [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 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. dharam 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 “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 icant 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 213 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 176] and Union of India v. Padam Narain drance 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 legality of the proposed arrest of the Code. The role of the investigator is well defined and the jurisdictional scope of 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 tion 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 ipatory 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 was also held that the court should also consider whether the accusations have been made only with the object of [Siddharam , (2011) 1 SCC 694 : and other judgments and observing that Jai v. State of Bihar, , the Supreme Court held as n 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 icant 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 arain AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.10 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 8. serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. allegations co-accused, allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and weapons i.e. violent and premeditated assault further alleged that during the course of this incident, discharged with the intent to cause harm and create panic protestors. namely Vipin -45350-2025 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 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 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 held that while considering an application for grant of pre Court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, th 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 rol 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 (o 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. allegations contained in the FIR, on 28.03.2025 accused, allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and i.e. axes, hammers, sticks, and country violent and premeditated assault on the complai further alleged that during the course of this incident, discharged with the intent to cause harm and create panic protestors. The incident resulted in grievous injuries to four individuals Vipin, who sustained seven injuries 7 Aggarwal [Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal, (2008) 13 SCC CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has ed sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar ectorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2 SCC , it was held that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail.” 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, th 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 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 axes, hammers, 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 seven injuries; Vinod Kumar, who suffered Aggarwal [Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal, (2008) 13 SCC CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has ed sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar SCC , it was held that in economic offences, the others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and , Constitution Bench of this Court 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 “92.4. Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such e 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 r 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, As per the alongwith armed with deadly launched a nant and other villagers. It is firearms were among the grievous injuries to four individuals, , who suffered six AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.10 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- injuries, including a Manoj, who also received the statement of the injured Rahul specifically attributes the role of firing to the petitioner. opinion of this Court, a bail, the Court is not to evaluate the evidence but only to see w facie allegations disclose a serious offence. The direct allegation of use of firearm by the petitioner cannot be ignored while considering the plea for grant of anticipatory bail. 9. does not demolish the prosecution version at this stage. It is trite law that the ocular evidence of an injured witness has greater evidentiary value. Furthermore, the simple nature of injuries does not dilute the seriousness of the allegation of firin the petitioner was Though the petitioner may not have been attributed with a specific act of firing the fatal suggest the unlawful assembly with a common object. accused does not entitle the petitioner to parity as the role attributed to him is distinct and grave. absolute and cannot be applied mechanically in all circumstances. Each case must be evaluated on its own facts and the nature and role of each accused is to be independently asses 10. recovered -45350-2025 , including a head injury; Rahul, who sustained , who also received three injuries. The material on record, particularly the statement of the injured Rahul recorded under Section 180 BNSS, specifically attributes the role of firing to the petitioner. opinion of this Court, at the stage of considering the plea for anticipatory bail, the Court is not to evaluate the evidence but only to see w allegations disclose a serious offence. The direct allegation of use of firearm by the petitioner cannot be ignored while considering the plea for grant of anticipatory bail. The contention regarding non does not demolish the prosecution version at this stage. It is trite law that the ocular evidence of an injured witness has greater evidentiary value. Furthermore, the simple nature of injuries does not dilute the seriousness of the allegation of firing at the victim. The FIR the petitioner was a part of a group who were armed Though the petitioner may not have been attributed with a specific act of firing the fatal injury but the allegations, as reco the presence and participation unlawful assembly with a common object. accused does not entitle the petitioner to parity as the role attributed to him s distinct and grave. It is well settled that the principle of parity is not absolute and cannot be applied mechanically in all circumstances. Each case must be evaluated on its own facts and the nature and role of each accused is to be independently assessed. The weapon allegedly used by the recovered and the investigating agency has sought the custodial 8 , who sustained three injuries; and The material on record, particularly recorded under Section 180 BNSS, specifically attributes the role of firing to the petitioner. In the considered t the stage of considering the plea for anticipatory bail, the Court is not to evaluate the evidence but only to see whether prima allegations disclose a serious offence. The direct allegation of use of firearm by the petitioner cannot be ignored while considering the plea for The contention regarding non-recovery of empty cartridg does not demolish the prosecution version at this stage. It is trite law that the ocular evidence of an injured witness has greater evidentiary value. Furthermore, the simple nature of injuries does not dilute the seriousness of The FIR ibid clearly demonstrates that part of a group who were armed with deadly weapons. Though the petitioner may not have been attributed with a specific act of the allegations, as recorded in the FIR, prima facie presence and participation of the petitioner as part of an unlawful assembly with a common object. Similarly the grant of bail to co accused does not entitle the petitioner to parity as the role attributed to him t is well settled that the principle of parity is not absolute and cannot be applied mechanically in all circumstances. Each case must be evaluated on its own facts and the nature and role of each accused is weapon allegedly used by the petitioner has not yet been investigating agency has sought the custodial and The material on record, particularly recorded under Section 180 BNSS, In the considered t the stage of considering the plea for anticipatory prima allegations disclose a serious offence. The direct allegation of use of firearm by the petitioner cannot be ignored while considering the plea for recovery of empty cartridges does not demolish the prosecution version at this stage. It is trite law that the ocular evidence of an injured witness has greater evidentiary value. Furthermore, the simple nature of injuries does not dilute the seriousness of that with deadly weapons. Though the petitioner may not have been attributed with a specific act of prima facie as part of an Similarly the grant of bail to co- accused does not entitle the petitioner to parity as the role attributed to him t is well settled that the principle of parity is not absolute and cannot be applied mechanically in all circumstances. Each case must be evaluated on its own facts and the nature and role of each accused is not yet been investigating agency has sought the custodial AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.10 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- interrogation and to establish the broader conspiracy, if cause nay be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. It goes without saying that in the instant case, the complainant categorically stated that the petitioner along with co an unlawful assembly, acted in furtherance of their common object multiple injuries upon the complainant party. 11. 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 o the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that the petitioner. 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 necess investigation. 1039, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) -45350-2025 interrogation of the petitioner for effective recovery, verification of facts and to establish the broader conspiracy, if 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 categorically stated that the petitioner along with co an unlawful assembly, acted in furtherance of their common object 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 the society. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie 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, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) , the Hon'ble 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 ma materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well 9 for effective recovery, verification of facts and to establish the broader conspiracy, if any, behind the occurrence. 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, 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 f 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. At this stage, there is prima facie case is not made out against 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 arily cause impediment in effective State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) , the Hon'ble 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 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 information and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well for effective recovery, verification of facts No plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present has accused and as part of inflicted 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 f 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. At this stage, there is e out against 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 arily cause impediment in effective State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is oriented than questioning a suspect who is ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of ny useful information and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.10 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 12. attributed to the victims, pending recovery of the weapon interrogation for a fair and thorough investigation considered opinion tha anticipatory bail in the factual 13. (i) (ii) of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. (iii) September 10 Ajay -45350-2025 protected and insulated by a pre 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 need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advan 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. In view of the gravity of the allegations attributed to the petitioner, the serious nature of injuries sustained by 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 milieu of the case in hand. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: The instant petition is 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. September 10, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 10 protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is ten 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 task of disintering offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.” gravity of the allegations, the specific role serious nature of injuries sustained by the pending recovery of the weapon and the necessity of custodial interrogation for a fair and thorough investigation, this Court is of the t the petitioner does not deserve the concession of of the case in hand. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: petition is 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 arrest bail order during the time he is ten interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught degree methods ced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in task of disintering offences cific role serious nature of injuries sustained by the necessity of custodial this Court is of the t the petitioner does not deserve the concession of petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.10 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document