[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikram Singh vs State Of Punjab on 30 April, 2026
CRM-M-21170--2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(207) CRM-M-21170-2026 (O&M)
2026
Date of decision : 30.04.2026
VIKRAM SINGH
...
.. Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab
***
MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under
Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS")
for grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.
No.26
26 dated 05.02.2026
registered under Sections 333, 118(2), 118(1) and 115(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNS") (Section 324(a) of BNS added later on) at
Police Station Kamboj, District Amritsar (Rural).
2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement
got recorded by the complainant Manpreet Singh alleging that on 04.02.2026, he
alongwith his family members was present at the main gate of his house, when
the present petitioner
petition armed with a kirpan, accompanied by co-accused
accused
Mandeep Singh,, who was armed with a datar reached there and started using
integrity of this order/judgment.
abusive language. The complainant came inside his house but both of them
followed him. His father intervened and then the petitioner opened an assault
upon his father by striking blows repeatedly with his sword. Two of the blows
hit the left hand and left
left side of chest of his father. Accused Mandeep Singh
struck blows with datar, thereby injuring left side of waist of his father. The
mother of the complainant also sustained injury at the hands of co
co-accused
accused
Mandeep Singh. The assailants also ransacked his house and damaged the
chairs lying in the courtyard. On clamour being raised, they fled from the spot.
The injured father of the complainant was rushed to the hospital for treatment.
After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been in
initiated
itiated and are
underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for
grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of Learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 07.04.2026.
3. It is argued by learned
learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been
falsely implicated in this case due some previous enmity. No injury on the
person of the complainant has been attributed to him. The subject offences are
triable by Magistrate. He is ready to join the inv
investigation.
estigation. His custodial
interrogation is not required. It is thus, argued that the petition deserves to be
allowed.
4. Status report has been filed. Learned State counsel has argued that
there are serious and specific allegations against the petition
petitioner
er who had caused
injuries with a sword on the person of father of the complainant thereby causing
a grievous injury and two simple injuries. The incised wound sustained by him
on his left hand was of a substantial size. No exceptional or extra
extra-ordinary
ordinary
integrity of this order/judgment.
circumstance for grant of anticipatory bail is made out in favour of the
petitioner. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained by the
victim and for conducting thorough investigation in the matter, custodial
interrogation of the petitioner
petitioner is must. It is, therefore, argued that the petition
does not deserve to be allowed.
5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties at considerable length.
6. The petitioner alongwith the co
co-accused is alleged to have
voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries on the person of the father
of the complainant. The injury attributed to him is on the left hand of the victim
caused by sword. The
The allegations against him are serious in nature. The case is
at its nascent stage. It is well settled that anticipatory bail to an accused can be
granted in exceptional circumstances only as a person couched in comparative
safety of pre-arrest
arrest bail would certainly not disclose all the facts within his
knowledge. In case custodial interrogation of the petitioner is denied to the
Investigating Agency, that shall leave many glaring loopholes and gaps, thereby
adversely effecting the investigation. The Court is also required to see that an
order of anticipatory bail does
does not operate as inroad in the normal legal
procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court. It is well settled proposition of
law that the powers for grant of pre-arrest
pre arrest bail are to be exercised by the Court
in extra-ordinary
ordinary and exceptional circumstances and with great caution while
taking into consideration the nature of the accusation and the sentence which the
conviction may entail. In the instant case, no such exceptional or extra
extra-ordinary
ordinary
circumstance is, however, made out from the pleas as taken by tthe
he petitioner.
integrity of this order/judgment.
For the purpose of conducting thorough and proper investigation custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is must. Taking into consideration the above
discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition deserves
to be dismissed. Accordingly the petition is dismissed.
7. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for
the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing
on the merits of the case.
8. Since the main petition has been dismissed
dismissed,, pending application, if
any, is rendered infructuous.
(MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
30.04.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No
integrity of this order/judgment.
