CRM-M-35789-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 116 CRM-M-35789-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.07.2026 Tilak Raj @ Tilak Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Randeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Senior DAG, Punjab. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest in case arising out of FIR No.244 dated 24.12.2025 registered under Sections 109, 333, 115(2), 118(1), 358(2) and 3(5) BNS, 2023 at Police Station City Batala, District Gurdaspur. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant Mariam Gill alleging therein that son of the complainant had performed love marriage with the daughter of the present petitioner. It is alleged that on 23.12.2025, the petitioner along with his two sons and wife forcibly entered into the house of the complainant armed with deadly weapons MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.07 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35789-2026 (O&M) -2- and assaulted husband of the complainant, namely Kalab Gill. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail, which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, vide order dated 09.06.2026. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to longstanding matrimonial discord between the parties. It is argued that the petitioner was not present at the spot and the entire family has been roped in only to exert pressure. It is further argued that though four injuries have been found on the head of the injured but no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner. The doctor has not declared any individual injury to be dangerous to life and the offence under Section 109 BNS has been added subsequently. It is also argued that the principal accused is already in custody and the petitioner's wife has been granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court. The petitioner is ready to join investigation. No recovery is to be effected from him. He and is neither likely to abscond nor tamper with the evidence. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him into custody. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Learned State counsel, who has advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter, has submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and specific in nature. He has played an active role in inflicting repeated blows on the head of the injured with a sharp-edged weapon. The injured suffered multiple incised wounds on vital parts of the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.07 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35789-2026 (O&M) -3- body and on medical opinion, the offence under Section 109 BNS has rightly been added. It is further argued that the investigation is still in progress, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to unearth the complete sequence of events and recover the weapons of offence and no ground is made out for extending the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 7. The petitioner is alleged to have actively participated in the occurrence by entering the complainant's house armed with a sharp-edged weapon and inflicting blows on the head of the injured. The allegations against him are specific and cannot, at this stage, be brushed aside as omnibus in nature. The medical evidence reveals multiple incised injuries on the head of the injured and the investigating agency has added the offence under Section 109 BNS after obtaining the doctor's opinion that the head injuries were collectively dangerous to life. The investigation is still at a crucial stage and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner cannot be said to be unwarranted. The fact that another co-accused has been arrested or that the petitioner's wife has been granted interim protection does not entitle the petitioner to claim anticipatory bail as a matter of right. In case his custodial interrogation is denied to the investigating agency, the same will leave many glaring loopholes and gaps adversely affecting the investigation. The powers under Section 482 of BNSS are extraordinary and the same are to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation, possibility of applicant fleeing from justice and other MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.07 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35789-2026 (O&M) -4- factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail as such grant to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence. The Court has also to see that an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as inroad in the normal legal procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court. The custodial interrogation of a suspected person is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 482 of BNSS. The Court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule and has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extra ordinary remedy. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 8. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 06.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.07 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document