Gopal Singh Alias Gurpal Singh And ... vs State Of Punjab
2026 Latest Caselaw 201 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gopal Singh Alias Gurpal Singh And ... vs State Of Punjab on 14 January, 2026

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH


107




CRM-M-1079-2026

Gopal Singh @ Gurpal Singh and another
                                                              ......Petitioner(s)
                                        Versus
State of Punjab
                                                          ......Respondent(s)
Decided on : 14.01.2026
Date of uploading: 14.01.2026

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL


Present:     Mr. Sultan Singh Gill, 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 petitioners in case bearing FIR

No.233 dated 29.09.2025, registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 333, 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 126(2), 127(2), 324(4), 351(2), 191(3),

190 of BNS 2023, at Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar Rural.

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

21.09.2025, at about 04:00 PM, a minor altercation took place between the

complainant's son, Arshdeep Singh, along with his mother, Rano, and

Harpreet Singh alias Happy (armed with an iron rod), Subegh Singh (armed

with a baseball bat), Gopal Singh (petitioner No.1 herein armed with a

dattar), Palwinder Singh (armed with a dang), Kulwant Singh alias Ghuda

(petitioner No.2, armed with a dattar), Jagbir Singh (armed with a dang),

1 of 8

CRM-M-1079-2026 Page |2

along with 5-6 unknown persons, while Arshdeep Singh and his mother

were returning to their house after obtaining medicines for Rano. After the

altercation, Arshdeep Singh fled away on his motorcycle with his mother as

a pillion rider and reached their house. Shortly thereafter, all the aforesaid

persons, including the applicant/accused, while armed with various weapons,

forcibly entered the complainant's house. Harpreet Singh alias Happy raised

a lalkara to teach them a lesson for nursing enmity against them, pursuant to

which the applicant/accused inflicted a dattar blow from its reverse side on

Arshdeep Singh, which landed on the back of his head. Kulwant Singh alias

Ghuda also inflicted a dattar blow from its reverse side on the back of

Arshdeep Singh. When the complainant's father, Major Singh, intervened to

rescue Arshdeep Singh, Harpreet Singh alias Happy attacked him with an

iron rod, which struck the little finger of his left hand raised in self-defence.

Thereafter, Jagbir Singh delivered a dang blow on the left wrist of Major

Singh, while Palwinder Singh inflicted two dang blows, one on his forehead

and the other on the right side of his nose. As a result, Major Singh fell to

the ground, whereupon Subegh Singh inflicted two blows with a baseball bat

on his left cheek, causing fracture of his two lower teeth. The unknown

persons accompanying the assailants vandalized the complainant's house by

breaking household articles such as chairs. On raising an alarm, all the

assailants fled from the spot. While leaving, petitioner No.2-Kulwant Singh

struck the main gate of the house with a dattar, and Harpreet Singh alias

Happy bolted the gate from outside. On these set of allegations, instant FIR

was registered against the petitioner and his co-accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners

are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He

2 of 8

CRM-M-1079-2026 Page |3

has further contended that there is an inordinate delay of 8 days in lodging of

the FIR. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has further argued

that the petitioners are the family members of the accused party. Learned

counsel further argued that nothing is required to be recovered from the

petitioners. 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 petitioners are ready to join

the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending

them behind the bars. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel that the

present petition be allowed and the petitioners be granted the concession of

the anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the

grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, contending that the allegations

levelled against them are grave and serious in nature. It has been argued that

the petitioners, along with other co-accused, forcibly entered the

complainant's house while armed with deadly weapons and caused injuries

to the complainant and his family members. The investigation qua the FIR in

question is still ongoing and recovery of alleged weapon is to be effected

from the petitioners. Learned State counsel has iterated that the custodial

interrogation of the petitioners 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 petitioners are granted the concession of

pre-arrest, at this stage, it may impede the ongoing investigation.

                                3 of 8

 CRM-M-1079-2026                                                                        Page |4

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

gone through the available record of the case.

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 4 of 8

CRM-M-1079-2026 Page |5

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."

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."

                              5 of 8

 CRM-M-1079-2026                                                                     Page |6

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 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 petitioners. The FIR has been

registered against the petitioners and their co-accused on the basis of the

specific allegations, wherein the complainant had alleged that the petitioners

were armed with deadly weapons and had forcibly entered in his house. The

allegations against the petitioners are grave and serious in nature. As per

submissions made by learned State counsel, the investigation is still at a

preliminary stage, and custodial interrogation of the present petitioners is

necessary to unravel the truth. The learned counsel for the petitioners has

failed to demonstrate that the case registered against them is false.

No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage,

from which it can be deciphered that the petitioners have 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

individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to

reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to

6 of 8

CRM-M-1079-2026 Page |7

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 petitioners. 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 petitioners, 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

petitioners do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual

matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the

7 of 8

CRM-M-1079-2026 Page |8

petitioners 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

January 14, 2026
Naveen


             Whether speaking/reasoned:               Yes/No
             Whether reportable:                      Yes/No




                               8 of 8