Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mangal Singh vs State Of Punjab on 20 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
105
CRM-M-65316-2025
Mangal Singh
......Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab
......Respondent(s)
Decided on : 20.11.2025
Date of uploading: 20.11.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Gopal Rathi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, 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 petitioner in case bearing FIR
No.141 dated 07.06.2025, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 333, 110, 115(2), 324(4), 351(2), 191(3) and 190 of BNS 2023, at
Police Station Sadar, District Ferozepur.
2. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that the FIR was
lodged on the statement of complainant Laddu Singh son of Jangir Singh,
who in his complaint given to the police has alleged that on 05.06.2025 at
about 9:30 PM, he along with his family members was preparing to sleep
after having dinner when the petitioner (herein) armed with a gandasi
alongwith other accused persons namely Kulwinder Singh armed with a
1 of 8
CRM-M-65316-2025 Page |2
kirpan, Balkar Singh armed with a kappa, Satwinder Singh armed with a
dang, Kailash Kaur, Poonam Rani armed with a baseball bat, Sunita Rani
armed with a baseball bat, Akko Bai empty-handed, and Kulwant Kaur
armed with a dang--forcefully entered his house while hurling abuses at him
and his family. Accused Kulwinder Singh allegedly raised a lalkara
exhorting the others to catch hold of the complainant's family and teach
them a lesson for interfering in their affairs. Thereafter, the petitioner
(herein) is stated to have inflicted a gandasi blow on the head of the
complainant's brother Jaswant Singh with an intention to kill him, causing
an injury on the left side of his head. Poonam Rani is further alleged to have
struck Jaswant Singh with a baseball bat, hitting his left eye. When the
complainant intervened to save his brother, Balkar Singh purportedly gave a
kappa blow, which landed on the left side of the complainant's head. The
complainant has further alleged that the accused persons damaged household
property and hurled brickbats. The brother of the complainant-Jaswant
Singh fell unconscious, and upon the family raising alarm, neighbours
gathered at the spot and then all the accused fled away from the spot with
their respective weapons. On these set of allegations, instant FIR was
registered against the petitioner and his co-accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
accused is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present
case. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the present
FIR is a counter-blast to DDR No.16 dated 08.08.2025 lodged against the
complainant-party. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further
argued that the petitioner is also entitled for grant of anticipatory bail on the
ground of parity as other co-accused namely Kulwinder Singh, Balkar Singh,
2 of 8
CRM-M-65316-2025 Page |3
Kailash Kaur, Sunita Rani, Poonam Rani and Akko Bai have been granted
by the concerned Sessions Court vide orders Annexures P-3 to P-8,
respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner has no role whatsoever with the alleged incident. 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, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and
hence no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. It
is lastly submitted by the learned counsel that the present petition be allowed
and the petitioner be granted the concession of the anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra, the learned State Counsel opposed the grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence is of a serious
nature. Learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner had given a
gandasi blow to the brother of the complainant with the intention to kill him.
The investigation qua the FIR in question is still ongoing and recovery of
alleged weapon is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned State counsel
has iterated that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner 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 petitioner is
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.
3 of 8
CRM-M-65316-2025 Page |4
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:
"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."
4 of 8
CRM-M-65316-2025 Page |5
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
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
5 of 8
CRM-M-65316-2025 Page |6
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
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 allegations set forth in the FIR, serious charges have
undeniably been levelled against the present petitioner. The FIR has been
registered against the petitioner and his co-accused on the basis of the
specific allegations, wherein the complainant had alleged that the petitioner
was armed with a gandasi and inflicted a gandasi blow on his brother-
Jaswant Singh, with an intention to kill him, causing an injury on the left
side of his head. The allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious
in nature. The remaining co-accused have been attributed only simple
injuries, and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of parity for
seeking anticipatory bail. As per submissions made by learned State
counsel, the investigation is still at a preliminary stage, and custodial
interrogation of the present petitioner is necessary to unravel the truth. The
learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the case
registered against him is false.
No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage,
from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely
implicated into the present FIR.
8. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for
grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding
6 of 8
CRM-M-65316-2025 Page |7
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 petitioner. 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-
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."
9. 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
7 of 8
CRM-M-65316-2025 Page |8
petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual
matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth.
The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression
of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
November 20, 2025
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
8 of 8
