CRM-M-28578-2026 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (290) CRM-M-28578-2026 (O & M) Date of decision: 03.09.2026 Harjinder Singh @ Babbu …... Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Lakshay Bector, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kuljinder Singh Dhindsa, AAG, Punjab. **** 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.08 dated 19.01.2026 under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 351(2), 3(5) of BNS (erstwhile Sections 323, 324, 341, 506, 34 IPC) registered at Police Station Maloud, District Ludhiana. . 2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Yuvraj Singh and reads as under:- Statement of Yuvraj Singh son of Harjinder Singh resident of village Sohiya Police Station Maloud District Ludhiana age about 22 years Mobile No. 6283802594 stated that I am resident of the above said address. I work of making iron rods on lathe. On 17.01.2026 at about 4.30 P.M. I and my friend Davinder Singh S/o Pradeep Singh resident of village Sohiya were coming from village Floud Kalan to village Sohiya riding on motorcycle No. PB55D9023 black colour Platina. When on SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.09.04 11:41 I agree to specified portions of this document CRM-M-28578-2026 (O & M) ::2:: the way in the area of village Sohiya near Mata Rani Mandir we reached there, then from behind us one white colour Swift car being driven at a high speed came and hit our motorcycle from behind due to which we fell down on the ground. In the meantime, from the unnumbered Swift car two clean shaven youths came out. Out of whom one was Amninder Singh alias Honey son of Sikander Singh resident of Naromajra and the other youth was Harjinder Singh alias Babbu son of Gurmel Singh resident of Sohiya. Then Amninder Singh alias Honey aforesaid gave a blow with the kirpan held in his right hand on my head behind the left ear. The second blow was given by Harjinder Singh alias Babbu aforesaid with the daah held in his hand on my head. Then I fell down on the ground. Then while I was lying fallen Amninder Singh gave third blow with kirpan on the back right side of my head and then on the left side of my head. Then while saving myself I put my right hand forward then Harjinder Singh aforesaid gave a blow with daah on my right hand. Then while I was lying fallen Harjinder Singh gave blows with daah on my right knee and left knee. Then I got up and started running then from the side of village Sohiya one blue colour motorcycle CT-100 without number plate came. On which two youths were riding who surrounded me from the front and the pillion rider pushed me and the pillion rider got down from the motorcycle whose name was Sukhjinder Singh alias Bindri son of Gurmel Singh resident of Sohiya gave injuries on my left arm and left shoulder and also caused many injuries on my body and my friend Davinder Singh aforesaid also suffered minor injuries during collision with the motorcycle and was lying fallen at the spot. Then due to receiving more injuries I raised alarm of "marta-marta" then many people started gathering there. Then seeing gathering of people the aforesaid persons fled away with their respective weapons alongwith the SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.09.04 11:41 I agree to specified portions of this document CRM-M-28578-2026 (O & M) ::3:: aforesaid car and motorcycle. Then my uncle's son Jagdeep Singh S/o Baljit Singh resident of village Sohiya Police Station Maloud came at the spot who took me for treatment and got me admitted in Civil Hospital Maloud where doctor gave me first aid and referred me to Civil Hospital Ludhiana where I am under treatment. The reason of grudge is that earlier also the aforesaid persons had surrounded me and caused beating and quarrel. I got my statement recorded before you, heard it and the same is correct. Statement maker Sd/- Yuvraj Singh. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the complainant party. The allegations in the FIR are tainted and doubtful. One Sukhjinder Singh was alleged to be present at the spot, who later, was found to be present at his own house. There is an unexplained delay of 02 days in the registration of the FIR. As the petitioner has joined the investigation in terms of the order dated 19.05.2018, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. 4. The learned State counsel, on the other hand, while referring to the reply dated 28.07.2026 which is already on record, contends that the injuries attributed to the petitioner with a sharp-edged weapon are grievous in nature. Though, the petitioner has joined investigation, he has not co- operated with the same inasmuch as he has tried to stonewall the investigation on one pretext or the other. The serious nature of the allegations levelled against him do not entitle him to the concession as prayed for and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.09.04 11:41 I agree to specified portions of this document CRM-M-28578-2026 (O & M) ::4:: 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 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 SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.09.04 11:41 I agree to specified portions of this document CRM-M-28578-2026 (O & M) ::5:: 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 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 28.07.2026 filed by way of an affidavit of Harmanpreet Singh PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Payal, Police District Khanna, District Ludhiana, is as under:- 8. That the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR from its very inception. As per the allegations, on 17.01.2026, after the Swift car intentionally hit the complainant’s motorcycle from behind, the petitioner along with co-accused Amninder Singh came out of the vehicle armed with deadly weapons. While co-accused Amninder Singh allegedly inflicted kirpan blows, the present petitioner inflicted repeated daat SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.09.04 11:41 I agree to specified portions of this document CRM-M-28578-2026 (O & M) ::6:: blows on the head, right hand and both knees of the complainant, causing multiple injuries. The medical evidence corroborates these allegations, as the complainant sustained nine injuries, including grievous sharp weapon injuries on the head resulting in chip fractures of both parietal bones with bilateral scalp hematomas. The specific overt act attributed to the petitioner, coupled with the gravity of the injuries, establishes his active participation in the commission of the offence. His custodial interrogation is also required for the recovery of the weapon of offence (daat), identification of the vehicle used in the crime, and confrontation with the incriminating material collected during investigation. XXXX XXXX XXXX 11. That the plea that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner is also without substance. The petitioner is specifically alleged to have used a daat during the commission of the offence. Recovery of the weapon of offence and other incriminating material, identification of the vehicle used in the crime and verification of the circumstances surrounding the occurrence require custodial interrogation of the petitioner. Grant of anticipatory bail at this stage is likely to hamper a fair and effective investigation. 8. As per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner has repeatedly assaulted the complainant with a daat (sharp-edged weapon) on various parts of his body including his head causing him multiple injuries including grievous injuries. He has suffered fractures on both parietal bones with bilateral scalp hematomas. 9. As the offence stands prima facie established and the investigation is to be taken to its logical conclusion, the custodial SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.09.04 11:41 I agree to specified portions of this document CRM-M-28578-2026 (O & M) ::7:: interrogation of the petitioner is certainly necessary. Therefore, I find no merit in the present petition and the same stands dismissed. 10. 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. 11. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. September 03, 2026 ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI) sukhpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.09.04 11:41 I agree to specified portions of this document