[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh Kumar @ Khanna @ Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 30 April, 2026
106
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-23255-2026
Rakesh Kumar @ Khanna @ Rajesh Kumar ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ....Respondent
Date of Decision: April 30, 2026
Date of Uploading: April 30, 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Sunil Kumar Rohilla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab.
*****
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.49 dated 07.03.2026 registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 118(2) BNS added later
on vide DDR No.13 dated 19.03.2026, at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi,
District Kapurthala.
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--Ravinder Kumar, who in his statement made to the police has
stated that on 26.02.2026, while working as a labourer with the petitioner
(herein), he suddenly came down with a fever and was unable to continue
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-23255-2026 Page |2
working, which led to an altercation between them. He further stated that at
about 8:00-8:30 PM, while he was on his way to a grocery shop, the
petitioner (herein) allegedly under the influence of liquor, intercepted him
and assaulted him with a brick, causing injuries to his nose and forehead. It
is further alleged that even after he fell down, the petitioner continued the
assault and also gave a fist blow. Thereafter, while extending threats, the
petitioner fled away from the spot. Upon these set of allegations, the present
FIR came to be registered.
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, on account of a monetary dispute with the complainant, who is
closely related and working under the same contractor. It is contended that
there is an unexplained delay of 10 days in lodging the FIR and that the
MLR does not fully support the case of the prosecution. He has further
contended the injuries suffered by the complainant are either self-inflicted or
have been manipulated.
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
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-23255-2026 Page |3
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 has opposed the petition in
hand by arguing that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR. Learned
State counsel has further submitted that, as alleged by the complainant, the
petitioner inflicted multiple injuries with break on his nose and forehead,
which have subsequently been declared grievous in nature. It is further
submitted that as per MLR and X-ray reports, three injuries have been
sustained by the complainant, out of which two injuries were blunt and one
is sharp. The complainant has also suffered fractures, which reflects the
gravity of the offence. Given the 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. 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, the allegations against the
petitioner are of causing injuries with a brick on the vital parts of the body of
the complainant. As per the medical record and case set up by the
prosecution, multiple injuries have been sustained, including grievous
injuries involving fracture of frontal bone, fracture of anterior and postero
lateral walls of bilateral maxillary sinuses. Out of three injuries sustained by
the complainant, two have been declared grievous in nature. The nature of
the allegations, the manner of the incident and the use of weapon prima facie
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-23255-2026 Page |4
suggest a pre-planned act. The contention regarding delay of one day in
registration of FIR does not carry insignificant weight at this stage, the same
being nominal and inconsequential in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
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
NAVEEN NAGPAL custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-23255-2026 Page |5
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, 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 30, 2026
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
