[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Udham Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 April, 2026

                                                                                                    1
                     CRM-
                     CRM-M-18188-
                           18188-2026




                     109
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT
                                                       CHANDIGARH

                                                        CRM-
                                                        CRM-M-18188-
                                                              18188-2026

                     Udham Singh
                                                                                          ....Petitioner
                                                                                            Petitioner
                                                                versus

                     State of Punjab
                                                                                         ....Respondent

                     Date of Decision: April 06,
                                             06, 2026
                     Date of Uploading: April 06,
                                              06, 2026

                     CORAM:               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

                     Present:-
                     Present:             Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner
                                                                           petitioner.

                                          Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG Punjab
                                                                   Punjab.

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

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') (Section 438

of Cr. P.C.) seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case

bearing FIR No.0505 No dated 12.10.2025,, registered for the offences ences

punishable under Sections 109, 308(1), 308(2), 308(3), 308(4), 308(5),

308(6),, 126(2), 132, 221, 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 (earlier Sections 307, 383,

384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 341, 341, 353, 34 of IPC IPC)) and Sections 25, 27 of the

Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn Taran.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that on the basis of

secret information, the police started checking vehicles at T T-Point Point Adipal.

authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM-

CRM-M-18188- 18188-2026

During the checking, a white-colored Swift car carrying two persons was

observed approaching from the side of Bridge Dandia Wala. The ASI

signaled the vehicle to stop; however, instead of complying, the driver

attempted to flee by turning towards the T-point. In an apparent attempt to

escape and out of fear of being apprehended, the driver lost control of the

vehicle, which veered off the road into nearby bushes and became stuck.

Thereupon, the ASI along with the police party immediately alighted from

their vehicle and pursued the occupants. The person seated on the conductor

side opened fire directly at the police party with the intention to kill. In self-

defence, the ASI fired one warning shot in the air from his service pistol and

another shot aimed at the legs of the accused. Meanwhile, SCT Karanjit

Singh No. 1467/T.T. fired five warning shots from a government-issued

weapon. In the meantime, the person seated on the driver side alighted from

the vehicle and attempted to flee through the bushes towards the road;

however, he was subsequently apprehended. The person seated on the

conductor side also alighted from the vehicle and again fired directly at the

ASI with his pistol. In response, the ASI fired four shots from his service

pistol, one of which struck the said person on his right leg. Thereafter, the

injured person took out a mobile phone from the right pocket of his jeans

and threw it onto the ground before collapsing. The police party

apprehended the injured individual along with the pistol. Upon inquiry, he

disclosed his identity as Gursewak Singh @ Bomb. He further revealed that

the driver who had fled was Udham Singh (petitioner herein).

authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM-

CRM-M-18188- 18188-2026

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare

perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner

are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has

iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in

question. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner was not

apprehended at the spot and was implicated on the basis of disclosure of co-

accused, which is not admissible in law. Learned counsel has further argued

that, assuming arguendo, the prosecution version is taken to be correct, there

is no allegation of firing shot(s) and causing any assault or injury to the

police official. Learned counsel has iterated that from the perusal of the FIR

in question, no offence of extortion is made out.

3.1. Learned counsel has asserted that the police have not conducted

a fair and impartial investigation and the inquiry conducted so far is not only

incomplete, but also tainted with bias. Learned counsel has further asserted

that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. 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. On the

aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail

to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is

serious in nature. Learned State counsel has iterated that there are serious

allegations against the petitioner. In case, the petitioner is granted

concession of anticipatory bail, there is all likelihood that the petitioner may

abscond from the process of justice as also interfere/ intimidate the

authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM-

CRM-M-18188- 18188-2026

prosecution evidence/ witnesses. On the strength of these submissions,

dismissal of petition in hand is entreated for.

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

gone through the available record of the case.

6. As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, the allegations

against the petitioner are grave, serious and involve offences of a heinous

nature. As per the prosecution case and upon perusal of the impugned order,

it is borne out that the petitioner-Udham Singh was the driver of the vehicle

which was deliberately attempted to be fled from lawful checking, thereby

clearly indicating his conscious involvement in the commission of the

offence. His act of trying to escape from the police party, leading to loss of

control of the vehicle, reflects a guilty mind and an attempt to evade

apprehension. Further, his co-accused opened fire upon the police party with

an intention to kill, which establishes that the petitioner was acting in active

concert with an armed accomplice, thereby attracting the principle of

common intention. The offence involves use of a firearm against police

officials performing official duty, which is extremely serious and has a

direct bearing on public safety and law enforcement. It is further borne out

that the petitioner absconded from the spot after the incident and was

apprehended only subsequently, which clearly demonstrates his conduct of

evasion.

6.1. 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.

authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM-

CRM-M-18188- 18188-2026

7. 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 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, (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."

8. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, the role attributed

to the petitioner, this Court finds no compelling ground to extend the benefit

authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM-

CRM-M-18188- 18188-2026

of discretionary relief to the petitioner. Moreover, considering the gravity of

the offence and the manner in which the petitioner along with his co-accused

opened fire at the police party, there is a strong likelihood that if granted the

extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail, the petitioner may influence or

intimidate the prosecution witnesses. Granting bail, at this stage, would not

only undermine the administration of justice, but may also embolden the

accused and pose a threat to the safety and well-being of the victim and