Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikram Singh vs State Of Punjab on 30 April, 2026
CRM-M-21170--2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(207) CRM-M-21170-2026 (O&M)
2026
Date of decision : 30.04.2026
VIKRAM SINGH
...
.. Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab
***
MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS") for grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No. No.26 26 dated 05.02.2026 registered under Sections 333, 118(2), 118(1) and 115(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNS") (Section 324(a) of BNS added later on) at Police Station Kamboj, District Amritsar (Rural).
2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement got recorded by the complainant Manpreet Singh alleging that on 04.02.2026, he alongwith his family members was present at the main gate of his house, when the present petitioner petition armed with a kirpan, accompanied by co-accused accused Mandeep Singh,, who was armed with a datar reached there and started using AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-21170--2026 (O&M) 2
abusive language. The complainant came inside his house but both of them followed him. His father intervened and then the petitioner opened an assault upon his father by striking blows repeatedly with his sword. Two of the blows hit the left hand and left left side of chest of his father. Accused Mandeep Singh struck blows with datar, thereby injuring left side of waist of his father. The mother of the complainant also sustained injury at the hands of co co-accused accused Mandeep Singh. The assailants also ransacked his house and damaged the chairs lying in the courtyard. On clamour being raised, they fled from the spot. The injured father of the complainant was rushed to the hospital for treatment. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been in initiated itiated 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, Amritsar vide order dated 07.04.2026.
3. It is argued by learned learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case due some previous enmity. No injury on the person of the complainant has been attributed to him. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. He is ready to join the inv investigation.
estigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. It is thus, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.
4. Status report has been filed. Learned State counsel has argued that there are serious and specific allegations against the petition petitioner er who had caused injuries with a sword on the person of father of the complainant thereby causing a grievous injury and two simple injuries. The incised wound sustained by him on his left hand was of a substantial size. No exceptional or extra extra-ordinary ordinary AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-21170--2026 (O&M) 3
circumstance for grant of anticipatory bail is made out in favour of the petitioner. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim and for conducting thorough investigation in the matter, custodial interrogation of the petitioner petitioner is must. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.
6. The petitioner alongwith the co co-accused is alleged to have voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries on the person of the father of the complainant. The injury attributed to him is on the left hand of the victim caused by sword. The The allegations against him are serious in nature. The case is at its nascent stage. It is well settled that anticipatory bail to an accused can be granted in exceptional circumstances only as a person couched in comparative safety of pre-arrest arrest bail would certainly not disclose all the facts within his knowledge. In case custodial interrogation of the petitioner is denied to the Investigating Agency, that shall leave many glaring loopholes and gaps, thereby adversely effecting the investigation. The Court is also required to see that an order of anticipatory bail does does not operate as inroad in the normal legal procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court. It is well settled proposition of law that the powers for grant of pre-arrest pre arrest bail are to be exercised by the Court in extra-ordinary ordinary and exceptional circumstances and with great caution while taking into consideration the nature of the accusation and the sentence which the conviction may entail. In the instant case, no such exceptional or extra extra-ordinary ordinary circumstance is, however, made out from the pleas as taken by tthe he petitioner.
AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-21170--2026 (O&M) 4
For the purpose of conducting thorough and proper investigation custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly the petition is dismissed.
7. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.
8. Since the main petition has been dismissed dismissed,, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.
(MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 30.04.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.