CRM-M-40567-2026 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (217) CRM-M-40567-2026 (O & M) Date of decision: 26.08.2026 Avtar Singh …... Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Simar Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Roshandeep, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Raunaq Singh Aulakh, Advocate, for the complainant. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral) The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 BNSS (Section 438 Cr.P.C.) is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.103 dated 30.05.2026 under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 119 and Section 3(5) of the BNSS (Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 327 and Section 34 IPC) registered at Police Station Dehlon, Ludhiana. 2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Baldev Singh and reads as under:- Stated that I am residing in aforesaid address and agriculturist. That on 29.05.2026 at 7:30 A.M I was present in my house then I came to know that our neighbor Bharpur Singh, S/o Bhag Singh was measuring our pit of fertilizer (Ruri Garra). Thereof on this I and my son Gurwinder Singh and nephews Sukhwinder Singh s/o Hardev Singh and Lakhwinder Singh, s/o Balbir singh SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.08.27 13:13 I agree to specified portions of this document CRM-M-40567-2026 (O & M) ::2:: reached on the site. Bharpur Singh was already having weapon stick (dang) and Avtar Singh was also having weapon sword (kirpan) and Guwinder B kindi was having Weapon stick (dang) and found standing thereon. When I wanted to discuss the matter than Bharpur Singh raised alarm (Lilkara) saying we would not let you go dry today and would teach you a lesson of throwing fertilizer (Rurri) in our pit of fertilizer (Rurri gada) Meanwhile Gurwinder singh urf Kindi surrounded me from back and meantime Avtar Singh alias Tari attacked me with sword (kirpan) in his hand on me which struck my left hand. Bharpur Singh attacked on me with his stick (dang) which stuck on my finger of left hand. I cried and shouted saying I have been attacked attacked. My son and nephew came forward to help me. Gurwinder Singh alias Kindi attacked me with the stick (dang) which struck on my left side of neck and I have fallen down on the ground. This incident was seen by my son Gurwinder and nephew Sukhwinder Singh and Lakhwinder Singh as a witness. I and my son shouted that we have been attacked. The people started gathering around. Aforesaid person fled away with their weapons while threatening to kill. my son and my nephew arranged vehicle and I was shifted to Civil hospital Dehlon. That dressing on my injury was done by Doctor and he prepared the MLR. The doctor has referred me to Civil Hospital Ludhiana after giving first aid, where I am under treatment. The cause of fight is hatred in the mind of Bharpur Singh to encroach upon my pit of fertilizer (rurri gada) on which am having long possession and while keeping this fact in mind they have caused injury to me. Kindly take action against the accused persons namely Bharpur singh, S/o Bhag Singh, Avtar Singh, Gurwinder Singh alias Kindi, s/o Sukhdev Singh village Alamgir, PS. Dehlon, District Ludhiana. Today I SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.08.27 13:13 I agree to specified portions of this document CRM-M-40567-2026 (O & M) ::3:: have recorded my statement in the presence of my son Gurwinder Singh Sd/- Baldev Singh, s/o Sadhu Singh 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. In fact, it is the complainant party that attacked the petitioner side. Baldev Singh has self- inflicted the injury upon himself. As the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation, he is entitled to the concession of bail. 4. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has filed a reply dated 25.08.2026 which is taken on record. While referring to the said reply, he alongwith the counsel for the complainant contend that the petitioner-Avtar Singh was armed with a sword and gave a blow on the left hand of the injured-complainant/Baldev Singh. The said injury is grievous in nature. In fact, the severity of the injury can be seen from the fact that the underlying bone and viscera is clearly visible. As the offence is prima facie established and the investigation is to be taken to its logical conclusion, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is certainly required and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Sumitha Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977’, has held that merely because custodial interrogation was not required by itself could not SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.08.27 13:13 I agree to specified portions of this document CRM-M-40567-2026 (O & M) ::4:: be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the foremost thing the Court hearing the anticipatory bail application is to consider is the prima facie case against the accused. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- “It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has already been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation. Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.08.27 13:13 I agree to specified portions of this document CRM-M-40567-2026 (O & M) ::5:: application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.” 7. The relevant extract of the State reply dated 25.08.2026 filed by way of an affidavit of Angrej Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sub Division South, Ludhiana, enumerating the injuries suffered by the complainant-Baldev Singh are as under:- 7. That as per the MLR, the complainant/injured Baldev Singh received the following injuries on his body, which are described below:- Injury No. Description of Injury Weapon 1. Lacerated wound measuring 8 x 2 cm extending from the base of proximal phalanx of little finger till the base of middle finger (proximal phalanx) of left hand. Underlying bone and viscera visible. X-ray left hand and orthopedic consultation advised. Sharp 2. Lacerated wound of size 3 x 0.5 cm present on proximal phalanx of index finger of left hand. X-ray left Blunt SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.08.27 13:13 I agree to specified portions of this document CRM-M-40567-2026 (O & M) ::6:: hand advised. 3. Reddish abrasion of size 5 x 0.5 cm present on left side of neck. Blunt The injury no.1 & 2 were kept Under Observation (KUO) and injury no. 3 was declared simple in nature. Injury no.1 was declared declared sharp, injury no.2 & 3 were declared blunt. A copy of the MLR of the complainant is attached herewith as Annexure R-1. XXXX XXXX XXXX 10. That during investigation, the investigation officer moved an application dated 08.06.2026 to the senior medical officer for providing the nature of the injuries which were kept under observation. As per the opinion of the doctor, "This is to Inform That MLR No. MLR/MKD/DEH/66/26 dare at CHC Dehlon on 29.05.2026 Following is the X-RAY report Opinion X RAY (L) hand AP/Oblijue Films (2) Fracture of 3rd, 4th & 5th Mata carpal of Left hand/ facture of middle Phalanx of 3rd Injury of (L) hand. Fracture of proximal Phalanx of fifth finger of (L) hand. Injury No 1 & 2 is declared grievous in nature". A copy of the application as well as the opinion of the doctor is attached herewith as Annexure R-2. Consequently, offence U/s 118(2) of BNS was added in the present case vide GD No. 26 dated 08.06.2026 and offence U/s 117(2) BNS (erstwhile Section 325 IPC) was added in the present case vide GD No. 24 dated 19.08.2026. XXXX XXXX XXXX 13. That for the kind convenience of this Hon'ble Court, a chart indicating the details of the accused persons, weapon used by each accused, the part of the body targeted, and the nature of injuries inflicted upon the injured/complainant Baldev Singh is given herein below: SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.08.27 13:13 I agree to specified portions of this document CRM-M-40567-2026 (O & M) ::7:: INJURY CHART AS PER FIR READ WITH FINAL MEDICAL OPINION Sr. No . Name of Accused Weapon Armed with Injury Attributed in FIR Part of Body Corresponding MLR Injury/X-ray Finding Final Nature of Injury 1 Avtar Singh @ Tari (petitioner) Sword Inflicted a sword blow upon the complainant Left hand MLR Injury No. 1: Lacerated wound measuring 8 x 2 cm extending from the base of proximal phalanx of little finger till the base of middle finger (proximal phalanxj of the left hand, with underlying bone and viscera is visible. X ray showed fractures of the 3rd, 4th and 5th metacarpals of the left hand; fracture of middle phalanx of 3rd finger; and fracture of proximal phalanx of 5th finger. Sharp grievous 2 Bharpur Singh son of Bhag Singh Stick (Dang) Inflicted a stick (dang) blow upon the complainant Finger(s) of left hand MLR Injury No. 2: Lacerated wound measuring 3 x 0.5 cm. on the proximal phalanx of index finger of the left hand. On the basis of the X- ray report and medical opinion, Injury No. 2 was declared grievous. Blunt grievous 3. Gulwinder Singh @ Gurwinder Singh @ Kindi Stick (Dang) Inflicted a stick (dang) blow upon the complainant after surrounding him from behind Left side of neck MLR Injury No. 3: Reddish abrasion measuring 5 x 0,5 cm present on the left side of neck. Blunt simple SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.08.27 13:13 I agree to specified portions of this document CRM-M-40567-2026 (O & M) ::8:: 8. A perusal of the aforementioned MLR of the injured- complainant would reveal severe injuries on the left hand of the complainant-Baldev Singh. Photographs of the injured hand shown to his Court would reveal that the underlying bone and viscera is visible. Apparently, the injuries are grave. 9. As the offence is prima facie established and the investigation is to be taken to its logical conclusion including recovery of the weapon in question, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is certainly necessary. 10. Therefore, I find no merit in the present petition and the same stands dismissed. 11. However, it is made clear that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding this bail application and the Trial Court is free to adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of the evidence led before it uninfluenced by any such observations made. 12. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. August 26, 2026 ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI) sukhpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.08.27 13:13 I agree to specified portions of this document