Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurkirat Singh vs State Of Punjab on 12 November, 2025
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
CRM-M-50096-2025 (O & M)
::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(212)
CRM-M-50096-2025 (O & M)
Date of decision: 12.11.2025
Gurkirat Singh ...... Petitioner
V/s
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Gursimran Singh Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. M.S. Toor, AAG, Punjab.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 of BNSS,
2023 is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.107
dated 27.05.2025 under Sections 115(2), 118(2), 190, 191(3) of BNS, 2023
(Sections 324, 326, 148 and 149 IPC), registered at Police Station Division
Jandiala, District Police Amritsar.
2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of
Amritpal Singh and reads as under:-
Statement of Amritpal Singh, son of Lakhwinder Singh,
resident of near Guru Nanak Park, Nava village, Satyala
district, Amritsar, age 26 years, no. 98555-19440. I am a
resident of that address and am currently engaged in
agricultural work. On 28-4-2025, I was present in the church
market in Nava village. I had gone there on the instructions of
the Sarpanch of my village, Sarb Nava village, to attend the
1 of 5
CRM-M-50096-2025 (O & M)
::2::
NREGA meeting at At about 9.15 AM, Karan Sahota armed
with datar, Gurkirat Singh armed with datar, Ravinder Singh
armed with a rod and Akashdeep Singh, Mehakdeep Singh
alongwith two unidentified persons came there Gurkirat
Singh raised Lalkara to catch hold of the complainant and to
teach him a lesson for having a dispute with them. Upon this,
Karan Sahota gave a datar blow on him which hit him on the
left side of his head Gurkirat Singh gave a datar blow which
hit him on front side of his head. Ravinder Singh gave a rod
blow which hit him on his head. The complainant fell down
on the ground in injured condition. While the complainant
was lying on the ground, Akashdeep Singh and Mehakdeep
Singh and unknown persons gave him kick blows. When the I
raised hue and cry, all the assailants ran away along with
their weapons, threatening to kill me. Then Sarabjit Singh
Sarpanch reached the spot and arranged for me to be
admitted to Civil Hospital Manawala for treatment, from
where I was sent to Guru Nanak Hospital for further
treatment. After treatment, I was discharged from the hospital.
The incident happened on 27-4-2025 at night. I was walking
in the park built near my house where Akashdeep Singh,
Mehakdeep Singh and Gurkirat Singh, Karan Sahota were
also present. They were abusing each other in a drunken
state. I told them that the residents are near the house. Don't
abuse them. They all abused me. While doing so, they left
from there saying. "We will take care of you," Then, under this
enmity, they seriously injured me by hitting me and abusing
me. I was going to the police station to take action regarding
this you met me and appropriate action should be taken
against them." SD/-Amritpal Singh.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is a delay of
2 of 5
CRM-M-50096-2025 (O & M)
::3::
one month in the registration of the FIR which stands unexplained. As the
petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation, he is entitled to the
concession of anticipatory bail.
4. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends
that the petitioner is the main accused having been attributed a grievous
injury with a datar ( a sharp-edged weapon) on the person of the
complainant. The nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner and
the injury attributed to him do not entitle him to the grant of anticipatory bail
and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
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.
3 of 5
CRM-M-50096-2025 (O & M)
::4::
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
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."
4 of 5
CRM-M-50096-2025 (O & M)
::5::
7. When the co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Ravinder Singh
@ Ravi had sought the concession of anticipatory bail, at that stage, the
argument raised was that Ravinder Singh @ Ravi had been attributed a
simple injury whereas Gurkirat Singh (the present petitioner) had been
attributed the grievous injury with a datar. The said fact of the petitioner
being the main accused has been reiterated by the learned counsel for the
State. Therefore, the offence stands prima facie established. The petitioner
appears to be the main accused having been attributed the injury attracting
Section 326 IPC (Section 118(2) BNS, 2023). Therefore, he is not entitled
to the concession of anticipatory bail.
8. In view of the above, I find no merit in this petition and the
same stands dismissed.
9. 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.
10. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
November 12, 2025 ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
sukhpreet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
