[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Resham Singh vs State Of Punjab on 23 April, 2026

                     112
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                                     CHANDIGARH

                                                        CRM-M-22302-2026

                     Resham Singh                                                          ....Petitioner

                                                               Versus

                     State of Punjab                                                     ....Respondent


                     Date of Decision: April 23, 2026
                     Date of Uploading: April 23, 2026


                     CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL


                     Present:             Mr. Parminder Singh Kanwar, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                          Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab.

                                          Mr. Harjot Singh Mann, Advocate for the complainant.

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

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. 0073 dated 05.02.2026 registered under Sections 109, 126, 191,

190, 351, 324 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Sections 307,

341, 148, 149, 503, 425 IPC) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959,

Sections 117 and 238 BNS (added later on) (Sections 325 and 201 IPC), at

Police Station Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn Taran.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that the FIR in

question was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the

complainant--Gurjinder Singh, who in his complaint has stated that on

authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-22302-2026 Page |2

04.02.2026 he along with his companion had gone to Goindwal Sahib and

while returning to his residence at about 10:00 PM, when they reached at a

short distance from their house, they noticed a white-coloured vehicle

already standing there and about with 6-7 persons present in the said

vehicle. The said persons were armed with firearms and other deadly

weapons, allegedly stopped their vehicle and opened fire upon them. He has

further alleged that one of the gunshots hitting him and causing injury. The

bullets hit the windshield of their car. The complainant and his friend got

down from the car and ran. The moment he got down, they fired at him and

the shot hit near the joint of his right leg and he fell down. One of the

assailants gave datar blow to complainant which hit on the middle of his

head. He has further stated that his friend Ramandeep Singh came forward to

rescue him. They scuffled with him as well and gave baseball blow to

complainant on his right leg. Upon raising alarm by the complainant, his

cousin Gurpreet Singh, reached the spot. The complainant and his cousin

identified the assailants. Thereafter, the accused fled away from the spot.

Upon these set of allegations, the present FIR came to be registered against

the accused persons.

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 for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR

in question. It is contended that initially all the assailants were stated to be

unidentified but later the complainant alongwith cousin Gurpreet Singh

alleged to have identified three of the assailants. It is further submitted that

the role attributed to the petitioner is limited, as he is alleged to be armed

authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-22302-2026 Page |3

with a (datar) and the injury attributed invoked Section 117 of BNS

(erstwhile Section 325 IPC). It is also argued that there is a delay of one day

in lodging the FIR. He has further contended that the petitioner had joined

investigation pursuant to interim protection granted by the learned Sessions

Court but later on his plea for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the

concerned Court.

3.1. Learned counsel asserts 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 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.

Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and, hence, no

useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the

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

4. Per contra, learned State counsel (assisted by learned counsel

for the complainant) has opposed the petition in hand by arguing that the

petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and has been attributed a distinct

and active role of inflicting injuries on the vital part of the body i.e. the head

with a sharp-edged weapon (datar), which allegations are serious in nature.

It is further argued that the petitioner was part of an unlawful assembly and

participated in the alleged occurrence, wherein along with the aforesaid

injury gunshots were fired causing injuries to the complainant. Learned State

counsel has further argued that despite grant of interim protection, the

petitioner has not fully cooperated with the investigation and due to this his

bail was ultimately dismissed by the concerned Sessions Court. Given the

authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-22302-2026 Page |4

severity of the offence, there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioner

may abscond or tamper with the evidence, if he is enlarged on bail. 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. On these submissions, dismissal of the present

petition 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, indubitably,

grave and serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. As

per the version put forth by the prosecution, it prima facie emerges that the

petitioner and his co-accused were armed with deadly weapons including

fire arms and sharp-edged weapon (datar), resulting in grievous injuries to

the complainant. The petitioner has been specifically attributed a blow

inflicted on the head of the complainant with a sharp-edged weapon (datar),

which injury has been declared grievous in nature. The co-accused of the

petitioner namely Sehajpreet Singh is alleged to have fired shots at the

complainant and one of them hit near the joint of his right leg. As per case

put forth by the prosecution, it is also not in dispute that the petitioner was

granted interim anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Court, however, his

bail was subsequently dismissed on account of non-cooperation in

investigation. The contention regarding delay of one day in registration of

FIR does not carry insignificant weight at this stage, the same being minimal

and inconsequential in the facts and circumstances of the case.

authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-22302-2026 Page |5

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.

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 interests. 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 establish 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."

authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-22302-2026 Page |6

8. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, this Court finds no

compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the

petitioner. 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.

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

of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.

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

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE April 23, 2026 Naveen

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No