Ramandeep Singh @ Raman And Another vs State Of Punjab
2025 Latest Caselaw 4883 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ramandeep Singh @ Raman And Another vs State Of Punjab on 7 November, 2025

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH




107                                                CRM-M-62373-2025
                                                  Date of decision: 07.11.2025


Ramandeep Singh @ Raman and another                        ....Petitioners


                                        V/s
State of Punjab                                            ....Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL


Present:     Mr. Rashmeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
             Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Addl. AG, Punjab.


                                 *****
SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the BNSS')

for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case bearing FIR

No.15 dated 25.01.2025, registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(3), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 (Section 117(2) of

BNS 2023 added later on), at Police Station Amloh, District Fatehgarh

Sahib.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that, it was registered

on the basis of a statement made by the complainant, Sagar Giri, who stated

that he is a taxi driver. On 24.01.2025, at about 6:30 p.m., he was proceeding

on his motorcycle bearing registration No. PB23L-5377, make Hero

Splendor, black in colour, to meet his friend Ripin Kaushal. When he

reached near the cold store situated outside village Majri, at about 7:00 p.m.,

1 of 8

CRM-M-62373-2025 Page |2

a white-coloured car bearing registration No.PB08BY-1807 came from

behind and hit his motorcycle, causing him to fall to the ground. In his

statement, he further stated that, thereafter, four persons get down from the

said car--namely Akash, Vinay, Karan, and Raman. Akash allegedly gave a

blow with an iron gandasa which struck his left leg. The petitioner No.1-

Raman inflicted a blow with an iron grari on his right leg. Karan gave a

blow with a kirpan, and while the complainant tried to protect himself by

raising his left hand, the blow hit the fingers of his left hand. The petitioner

No.2-Vinay then assaulted him with a danda on his left hand. The accused

persons also damaged his motorcycle and the mobile phone he was holding.

All four assailants, while threatening to kill him, fled from the spot in their

car. Thereafter, his friend Ripin Kaushal and his father Balwinder Giri

reached the spot and took him to Civil Hospital, Amloh, where he was

admitted for treatment. On the basis of these allegations, an FIR was

registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(3), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023

(Section 117(2) of BNS 2023 added later on), against the petitioners and

their co-accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the

petitioners are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the

present case. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the

petitioners have no role whatsoever with the alleged commission of offence.

Learned counsel has iterated that neither the petitioners had caused any

injury upon the complainant nor any motive has come forth to show allege

involvement of the petitioners in committing the offence in question.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the petitioners were

not present at the place of occurrence. He has further submitted that there is

2 of 8

CRM-M-62373-2025 Page |3

a delay of one day in lodging of the FIR in question. Learned counsel asserts

that the in the instant case, the FIR fails to include material facts, which

further raised questions about its credibility and fairness. Moreover, the

custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is

justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material

evidence. Furthermore, nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners and

they are ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose would

be served by sending them behind the bars. It is lastly submitted by the

learned counsel that the present petition be allowed and the petitioners be

granted the concession of the anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra, the learned State Counsel opposed the grant of

anticipatory bail to the petitioners by arguing that the offence is of a serious

nature. The investigation with respect to the petitioners is still ongoing. As

per the FIR, the petitioners alongwith their co-accused attacked upon the

complainant party and gave injuries to the complainant. Learned State

counsel has iterated that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is

imperative for the purpose of effective and fair investigation and to unearth

the case of the prosecution. According to learned State counsel, in case the

petitioners are granted the concession of pre-arrest, at this stage, it may

impede the ongoing investigation.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have

gone through the available record of the case.

6. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Kishor Vishwasrao Patil vs. Deepak

Yashwant Patil and another passed in SLP(Crl) No.1125-2022, relevant

whereof reads as under:

3 of 8

CRM-M-62373-2025 Page |4

"74. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the investigation intended to secure several purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery of relevant information.

         xxx                    xxx                     xxx                   xxx
         xxx                    xxx                     xxx                   xxx

75. Observing that the arrest is a part of the investigation intended to secure several purposes, in Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B. [Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B., (2005) 4 SCC 303 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 933] , it was held as under : (SCC p. 313, para 19) "19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes. The accused may have to be questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons, if any, in the crime. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent his disappearance, to maintain law and order in the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest may become an inevitable part of the process of investigation. The legality of the proposed arrest cannot be gone into in an application under Section 438 of the Code. The role of the investigator is well defined and the jurisdictional scope of interference by the court in the process of investigation is limited. The court ordinarily will not interfere with the investigation of a crime or with the arrest of the accused in a cognizable offence. An interim order restraining arrest, if passed while dealing with an application under Section 438 of the Code will amount to interference in the investigation, which cannot, at any rate, be done under Section 438 of the Code."

76. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514], the Supreme Court laid down the factors and parameters to be considered while dealing with anticipatory bail. It was held that the nature and the gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made

4 of 8

CRM-M-62373-2025 Page |5

and that the court must evaluate the available material against the accused very carefully. It was also held that the court should also consider whether the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.

77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 :

(2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] and other judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar [Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC 379 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 468] , the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 386, para 19) "19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. (See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran [D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran, (2007) 4 SCC 434 :(2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 345] , State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain [State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain, (2008) 1 SCC 213 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 176] and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal [Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal, (2008) 13 SCC 305 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 1] .)"

Economic offences

78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain [Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2 SCC 105 :

1998 SCC (Cri) 510], it was held that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail."

15. In Sushila Agrawal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, Constitution Bench of this Court held that while considering an application for grant of pre-arrest bail the Court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence or likelihood of fleeing justice. The Court held:-

"92.4. Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a

5 of 8

CRM-M-62373-2025 Page |6

matter of discretion; equally whether and if so, what kind of special conditions are to be imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on facts of the case, and subject to the discretion of the court."

7. As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably,

serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. As per the

version put forth by the prosecution, the petitioners alongwith their co-

accused had opened attack upon the complainant and caused injuries to the

complainant. As per the allegations, one of the accused person Akash is

stated to have inflicted a blow with an iron gandasa which struck the

complainant's left leg. Petitioner No.1, Raman, is alleged to have caused an

injury with an iron grari on the complainant's right leg. Other co-accused

namely Karan is alleged to have given a blow with a kirpan, on the

complainant's, which hit on the fingers of his left hand. Thereafter,

Petitioner No.2, Vinay, is alleged to have assaulted the complainant with a

danda on his left hand. The petitioners have specifically been named in the

FIR in question.

No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage,

from which it can be deciphered that the petitioners have been falsely

implicated into the present FIR.

8. Furthermore, the investigation is still at a crucial stage, and

custodial interrogation of the petitioners is considered necessary to unearth

the complete facts and to ascertain involvement of any other persons

connected with the case. The petitioners are yet to be arrested and grant of

anticipatory bail, at this stage, may prejudice the ongoing investigation. The

apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the petitioners, if released on

bail, may abscond or attempt to influence witnesses also appears to be not

6 of 8

CRM-M-62373-2025 Page |7

without basis. Given the seriousness of the offence, the stage of investigation

and possibility of tampering with evidence or obstructing justice, this Court

is of the view that the petitioners do not deserve the concession of bail at this

juncture. Moreover, in view of the serious allegations, the custodial

interrogation of the petitioners is indispensable and crucial for unearthing the

broader conspiracy and identifying the other accomplices that may be within

the exclusive knowledge of the petitioners. Moreover, the grant of

anticipatory bail at this premature stage may seriously prejudice the ongoing

investigation and potentially result in tampering with evidence or

influencing material witnesses.

9. 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 is imperative that

every person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding

& fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to

hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitionerd. The

material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to

be established a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not

appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily

cause impediment in effective investigation. In State v. Anil Sharma

[State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the

Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6)

"6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-

                                 7 of 8

 CRM-M-62373-2025                                                                   Page |8

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 informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he 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."

10. In view of the gravity of the allegations and nature of offence,

since the necessity of custodial interrogation would arise for a fair and

thorough investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

petitioners do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual

matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the

petitioners is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth.

The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.

11. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression

of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.

12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

                                                      (SUMEET GOEL)
                                                         JUDGE

November 07, 2025
Naveen


             Whether speaking/reasoned:                   Yes/No
             Whether reportable:                          Yes/No

                                 8 of 8