Gurcharan Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gurcharan Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 18 April, 2026

-]-

CRA-S-725-2026 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH
201
CRA-S-725-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 18.04.2026
GURCHARAN SINGH
....Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
.... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Present:- Mr. K. S. Siwach, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana.
None for respondent No.2.
3 2k ie 2k
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present appeal is directed against the order dated 21.02.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad dismissing the application of the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.244 dated 27.06.2025 registered under Sections 115, 190, 191(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and (Section 117(2), 238 of BNS and Section 3(2)(VA) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Act, 1989 added later on) (hereinafter in short as 'SC/ST Act'), at Police Station City Sadar Fatehabad, District Fatehabad.

2. The allegations, in nutshell, are that the appellant along with other co-accused gave beatings to the complainant and his friend Rinku.

Hence, the present FIR.

x CRA-S-725-2026 (O&M) coe

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He argued that the appellant was neither present at the spot nor was named in the FIR. It has also been contended that the appellant was nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the appellant with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of co-accused during his/her custodial interrogation is not admissible. He argued that the present case is of version and cross-version wherein the complainant party initially attacked the appellants. Initially, the provisions of SC/ST Act were not invoked by the prosecution and has been added only to exert pressure upon the appellants to compromise the matter. Further, no recovery is to be effected from them. He further argued that the custodial interrogation of the appellants is not required for any recovery and they are ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, has already filed the status report in the matter, and while referring to the same, he has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant on the ground that the allegations levelled against him are serious in nature. He submits that the appellant along with co-accused formed an unlawful assembly and intentionally assaulted the complainant party. The medical evidence in the form of MLR and X-ray report corroborates the prosecution version and shows that injured persons sustained multiple injuries, including grievous injury to the victim-Rinku, which has been specifically attributed to the MOHIT 2026.04.18 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-725-2026 (O&M) present appellant. He further submits that the active participation of the appellant in the occurrence is also reflected in the video footage of the incident. Reliance in this regard is placed on Annexure R-6. Hence, he prays that the present appeal be dismissed.

5. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the appellant in causing injuries to the complainant party, including grievous injury to victim Rinku, and the fact that the prosecution version is prima facie supported by the medical evidence as well as the video footage placed on record, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 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 would be apposite to refer herein judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'State Vs. Anil Sharma', (1997) 7 SCC 187, wherein it has been held as under:

"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 advantage in disinterring many useful information and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he MOHIT 2026.04.18 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-725-2026 (O&M) 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."

7. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal in the factual matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the appellant is necessary for effective investigation and if it is denied, it will leave many loose ends, which is not desired. Thus, the present appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.

8. It is made clear that nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.

(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) 18.04.2026 JUDGE Mohit Bishnoi

i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No

ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No MOHIT 2026.04.18 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document