CRM-M-34818-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 103 CRM-M-34818-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.07.2026 Prince Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Ankush Rampal, 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 the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No.103 dated 15.04.2026 registered under Sections 109, 126(2), 118(1), 115(2), 118(2), 190 and 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Canal Colony, District Bathinda. 2. As per the allegations in the FIR, on 15.04.2026, the complainant's son Omkar Singh was allegedly waylaid by the petitioner and his co-accused, who, on account of previous enmity, formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted him with sharp-edged as well as blunt weapons with an intention to kill him. The victim sustained multiple injuries and was admitted to the Civil Hospital, Bathinda for treatment. On the statement of Paramjit MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.08 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34818-2026 (O&M) -2- Kaur, mother of the injured, the aforementioned FIR has been registered and investigation proceedings have been initiated, which are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail but the same has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide order dated 08.06.2026. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity between the parties. It is submitted that even according to the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner has been attributed only simple injuries on the leg of the injured, which is a non- vital part of the body. It is further argued that the alleged injuries attributed to the petitioner were caused by a blunt weapon and, therefore, the prosecution story does not justify invocation of the graver offences. Learned counsel submits that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner and his custodial interrogation is not required. It is further argued that the petitioner is a young man with permanent residence, is not involved in any other criminal case, is not likely to abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence and is willing to join the investigation. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and he does not deserve the benefit of anticipatory bail. It is argued that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR and has been attributed an active role in the assault upon the injured along with the other co-accused. The allegations disclose the commission of serious offences by an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, resulting in multiple injuries to the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.08 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34818-2026 (O&M) -3- victim. The investigation is at a crucial stage and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to ascertain the complete sequence of events, recover the weapons of offence, identify the role of other assailants and complete the investigation effectively. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 6. The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object thereof, is alleged to have actively participated in a joint assault upon the injured along with the co-accused. The allegations reveal that the victim sustained multiple injuries during the occurrence. Whether the injuries attributed to the petitioner are simple or otherwise and the exact nature of his participation are matters to be examined during the course of investigation and, subsequently, at trial. At this stage, the Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or evaluate the probable defence of the petitioner. The investigation is still in progress and the investigating agency is required to ascertain the precise role of each accused, recover the weapon(s) used in the occurrence, if any, and collect all relevant evidence. In such circumstances, custodial interrogation cannot be said to be unwarranted. 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 MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.08 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34818-2026 (O&M) -4- applicant fleeing from justice and other 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. 7. 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. 07.07.2026 (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 2026.07.08 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document