IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 103 CRM-M-47784-2025 Date of decision: 29.08.2025 Gursahib Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Rahi Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab (on advance notice). ***** 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.47 dated 22.05.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Section 109 of BNS, 2023 and Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Valtoha, District Tarn Taran. 2. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that the present FIR was registered on 22.05.2025 as per the statement of complainant Jaswant Singh, who in his statement stated that on 22.05.2025 at about 08.00/ 8.30 am., he was ploughing his fields with his tractor. The land of the petitioner (herein) was adjoining to his land and in between their land, there was one closed old water channel (khal). He intended to open that water channel, but the petitioner (herein) used to stop him from doing that as three feet area pertaining to the said water channel comes in his land. The complainant in his complaint made to the police has further stated that due to this reason and grudge, the petitioner (herein) fired a direct gun shot from his NAVEEN NAGPAL 2025.08.29 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh CRM-M-47784-2025 P a g e | 2 DBBL 12 bore gun, with the intention to kill him, which hit upon his right elbow and pellets hit on his left shoulder. He has further stated that one Satpal Singh, who was also ploughing his land in the nearby fields, witnessed the entire occurrence. He raised hue and cry and then the petitioner (herein) with his rifle fled away from the spot. Thereafter, one Manjeet Singh and said Satpal Singh came at the spot and took him to the Civil Hospital, Khemkaran, where he remained admitted. On these set of allegations, instant FIR under Section 109 of BNS, 2023 and Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959 was registered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question, as the story put by the prosecution is totally false and self-concocted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further iterated that the petitioner was armed with 12 bore DBBL gun and due to gunshot fire, the shot was hit on the left shoulder of the complainant, which is non vital part of the body. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further iterated that the injury attributed to the petitioner is not dangerous to life. Learned counsel asserts that 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 NAVEEN NAGPAL 2025.08.29 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh CRM-M-47784-2025 P a g e | 3 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. 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 i.e. 12 bore gun is yet to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned State counsel has further submitted that, in case the petitioner is granted the concession of pre-arrest, at this stage, it may impede the ongoing investigation, obstruct recovery and adversely effect the efforts to apprehend the remaining co-accused. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case. 6. 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 NAVEEN NAGPAL 2025.08.29 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh CRM-M-47784-2025 P a g e | 4 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 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 NAVEEN NAGPAL 2025.08.29 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh CRM-M-47784-2025 P a g e | 5 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 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.” 7. As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably allegations against the petitioner (herein) are serious in nature. As per the prosecution version, the petitioner (herein) was armed with 12 bore DBBL gun and fired a direct gun shot to complainant with intention to kill him, who has suffered two injuries. As per MLR, injury no.1 on his elbow joint, NAVEEN NAGPAL 2025.08.29 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh CRM-M-47784-2025 P a g e | 6 was declared as grievous in nature. Perusal of the FIR further reveals that injuries were caused to the complainant with intention to kill him. The offence is grave in nature. 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. 8. 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 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 NAVEEN NAGPAL 2025.08.29 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh CRM-M-47784-2025 P a g e | 7 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.” 8.1. In view of the gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioner, the serious nature of injuries sustained by the son of complainant, 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. 9. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE August 29, 2025 Naveen Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No NAVEEN NAGPAL 2025.08.29 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh