Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darbara Singh vs State Of Punjab on 22 May, 2026
275
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.23894 of 2026
Date of decision: 22.05.2026
Darbara Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Present :- Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Surinderjit S. Nahar, AAG, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
Mr. Sultan Singh Gill, Advocate
for the complainant.
*****
MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 BNSS (old provision Section 438 Cr.P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a criminal case arising out of FIR No.0022 dated 17.02.2026 registered under Sections 333, 118(2), 115(2), 3(5), 351(2) of BNS, 2023 (old provisions Sections 452, 326, 323, 34, 506 IPC, 1860) at Police Station Majitha, District Amritsar Rural.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 18.01.2026 at about 10:00 PM to 11:00 PM, when the complainant and her husband Chanchal Singh were sleeping in their house, Princepreet Singh armed with datar, Darbara Singh armed with kirch, Jagdish Singh armed with datar, NEETU RANI 2026.05.22 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD CRM-M No.23894 of 2026 -2- Jashanpreet Singh armed with kirch and Akashdeep Singh armed with datar trespassed into the house of the complainant from the terrace of their house. It is further alleged that Darbara Singh raised lalkara that the son of the complainant namely Gurpreet Singh be sent out of the room, whereafter all the accused broke open the door. It is further alleged that Princepreet Singh gave a datar blow on the head of the complainant, Darbara Singh gave a kirch blow on her head, Jagdish Singh gave a datar blow on her back and Jashanpreet Singh gave a kirch blow on her neck. It is also alleged that Akashdeep Singh and Princepreet Singh gave further datar blows on her head. When the husband of the complainant namely Chanchal Singh came forward to rescue her, all the accused allegedly inflicted several injuries upon him and thereafter, fled away from the spot after extending threats and breaking household articles. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present FIR was registered against the petitioner and other co-accused.
3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of previous enmity between the parties and a false story has been concocted by the complainant. It is further contended that the petitioner was neither present at the alleged place of occurrence nor inflicted any injury upon the complainant or her husband. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that there is an unexplained delay of about one month in registration of the FIR, as the alleged occurrence pertains to 18.01.2026 whereas the FIR came to be registered on 17.02.2026, which renders the prosecution NEETU RANI 2026.05.22 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD CRM-M No.23894 of 2026 -3- version doubtful. It has also been contended that the MLRs of the complainant and her husband are dated 21.01.2026 and 29.01.2026 respectively, whereas the occurrence allegedly took place on 18.01.2026. It has further been argued that the allegations levelled in the FIR are false and frivolous and that the petitioner has no role to play in the alleged occurrence. It is also contended that the final investigation report has not yet been presented and the trial is likely to take considerable time. Lastly, it has been submitted that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and he is ready to join investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency, therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It has been argued that a specific role has been attributed to the petitioner, who is alleged to have inflicted injury No.2 on the person of the complainant with a kirch on the left side of her head. The said injury has been declared grievous in nature caused by a sharp-edged weapon, thereby attracting the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC/118(2) BNS. It has further been submitted that thereafter, all the accused persons also caused injuries to the husband of the complainant namely Chanchal Singh and injuries No.3 and 4 on his person have also been declared grievous in nature caused by sharp-edged weapons, attracting the offence under Section 326 IPC/118(2) BNS. Learned State counsel has further submitted that overall three injuries, i.e injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 5, on the person of the NEETU RANI 2026.05.22 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD CRM-M No.23894 of 2026 -4- complainant have been declared grievous in nature caused by sharp-edged weapons, thereby attracting the offence under Section 326 IPC/118(2) BNS and most of the said injuries are on the head, which is a vital part of the body. It has also been argued that though there is some delay in conducting the MLR, however, it has been specifically mentioned in the medical record that most of the injuries on the person of the husband of the complainant were stitched wounds, which clearly indicates that the injured had initially received treatment from some other hospital and thereafter the MLR was conducted, therefore, no benefit can be derived by the petitioner from the said delay.
5. Keeping in view the specific role attributed to the petitioner, the nature of allegations and the fact that injury attributed to the petitioner on the head of the complainant has been declared grievous in nature caused by a sharp-edged weapon attracting the offence under Section 326 IPC/ 118(2) BNS, this Court does not find the petitioner entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.
6. Furthermore, out of the total injuries suffered by the complainant and her husband, five injuries, i.e three on the person of the complainant and two on the person of her husband, have been declared grievous in nature caused by sharp-edged weapons attracting the offence under Section 326 IPC/118(2) BNS and most of the injuries are on the head, which is a vital organ of the body. Mere delay in registration of FIR or conducting the MLR, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is not fatal to the prosecution case so as to entitle the petitioner to the NEETU RANI 2026.05.22 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD CRM-M No.23894 of 2026 -5- extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
8. However, nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
9. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(MANDEEP PANNU)
22.05.2026 JUDGE
neetu
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
NEETU RANI
2026.05.22 16:53
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
PHHC, CHD