[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Parvinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 March, 2026

                                                                               1
CRM-
CRM-M-14137-
      14137-2026




114
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                               CRM-
                               CRM-M-14137-
                                     14137-2026
Parvinder Singh
                                                                      Petitioner
                                                                    ....Petitioner
                                        versus
State of Punjab
                                                                  ....Respondent
Date of decision: March 13,
                        13, 2026
Date of Uploading: March 13,
                          13, 2026

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:-
Present:     Mr. Deependra Singla, Advocate and
             Mr. Agam Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

         Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG Punjab.
                             *****
SUMEET GOEL,
       GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') (earlier Section 438 of Cr.

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

No.0037 dated 14.02.2026, under Sections 309(6), 115(2), 126(2) 126(2),, 351(2) and

3(5) of the BNS, 2023 (pari materia to Sections 394, 321, 339, 503 and 34 IPC

respectively), ), at Police Station Badali Ala Singh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

2. The gravamen of allegations against the petitioner is that

complainant, namely, Jagtar Singh stated that oon 12.02.2026, at about 5:00 PM,,

he went to the market at Chunni Kalan on his scooter bearing registration

number PB-52B 52B-3174 to purchase household articles. While returning to his

village and when he was about to turn from Chunni Chunni-Morinda Road towards the

road leading to his village, a motorcycle (make Splendour) without any

registration number came from behind at a high speed and stopped in front of

1 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-14137- 14137-2026

his scooter. Three young persons were riding on the said motorcycle, and they

had covered their heads and faces. Without any provocation, the pillion rider

took out a steel pipe and struck him on the head, causing him to fall from his

scooter. Thereafter, the other two persons started beating him with rods and

dandas and demanded that he hand over all the cash and valuable items in his

possession. They also threatened that if he did not comply, they would kill him.

Upon an alarm being raised by the complainant and after hearing

his cries, passers-by gathered at the spot to rescue him. The assailants

attempted to flee from the spot on their motorcycle along with their weapons,

however, one Sikh person was apprehended, who disclosed his name as

Jaspreet Singh @ Mangu, and he also revealed the name of another person

involved as Parvinder Singh @ Gangu (petitioner herein). The complainant had

sustained multiple injuries, and blood was oozing from his head. During

commotion, Jaspreet Singh @ Mangu also managed to escape from the spot.

The above-named persons, in furtherance of their common intention, were

alleged to have caused serious injuries to the complainant with the intention of

committing robbery.

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

perusal of the FIR would reveal that the allegations levelled against the

petitioner are wholly concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned

counsel has further submitted that the petitioner was not apprehended at the

spot and has been implicated only on the basis of disclosure of co-accused, who

was apprehended at the spot. Learned counsel has further argued that there is

unexplained delay of 02 days in lodging the FIR in question. Learned counsel

2 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-14137- 14137-2026

has further argued that the alleged weapon was recovered from the co-accused,

and the petitioner has nothing to do with the offence in question.

3.1. Learned counsel has further contended that the police have not

conducted a fair, proper and impartial investigation, and the inquiry conducted

so far appears to be not only incomplete but also tainted with bias. Learned

counsel has further submitted that no recovery is to be effected from the

petitioner, and therefore his custodial interrogation is not warranted. It has been

further argued that custodial interrogation cannot be used as a punitive measure

and is justified only when it is absolutely necessary for the purpose of effecting

recovery or for eliciting material information relevant to the investigation.

Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to

join the investigation and to cooperate with the investigating agency as and

when required. In these circumstances, it is contended that no useful purpose

would be served by subjecting the petitioner to arrest or by sending him behind

bars. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, grant of anticipatory bail to

the petitioner has been entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of

anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that specific allegations have been

levelled against the petitioner in the FIR. Learned State counsel has further

contended that the petitioner, along with his co-accused, obstructed the way of

the complainant and thereafter, gave him injuries, including on his head and

demanded to handover cash and other valuables to them, thus, they have

committed heinous and serious offence. It has further been argued that

considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, there exists a reasonable

apprehension that the petitioner, if granted the concession of anticipatory bail,

3 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-14137- 14137-2026

may abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence. Learned State counsel

has also submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for

the purpose of conducting an effective and fair investigation and for unearthing

the entire chain of events pertaining to the alleged occurrence. On the strength

of the aforesaid submissions, learned State counsel has prayed that the present

petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.

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 prosecution case, and upon a perusal of the record as

well as the order passed by the Court below, it prima facie emerges that grave

and serious allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner. It is

further borne out that the accused persons, acting in furtherance of their

common intention, waylaid the complainant and brutally assaulted him with

deadly weapons such as a steel pipe, rods and dandas with the intention to

commit robbery. The complainant sustained multiple serious injuries, including

injuries on the head, and his condition became critical, requiring treatment first

at a private hospital and thereafter referral to Civil Hospital Khera and

subsequently to GMCH Sector-32, Chandigarh. It is, prima facie, revealed that

the manner in which the incident was executed clearly shows that the accused

persons had pre-planned the attack, intercepted the complainant on the road,

and used violence to accomplish their unlawful objective. Such acts

demonstrate the dangerous and violent conduct of the petitioner, making him

undeserving of the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail.

6.1. It is also pertinent to observe that the investigation in the present

case is still underway and the role of each of the accused persons is yet to be

4 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-14137- 14137-2026

thoroughly ascertained by the investigating agency. At this stage, the custodial

interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary to effectively investigate the

allegations. Grant of anticipatory bail, at this juncture, may hamper the course

of investigation and may also impede the efforts of the investigating agency to

unearth the complete facts of the case.

7. 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.

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 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

5 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-14137- 14137-2026

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."

8.1. Keeping in view of the seriousness and gravity of the allegations;

especially the role attributed to the petitioner and his co-accused of having

forcibly intercepting the complainant, causing him serious injuries and

demanding cash and valuables of the complainant, and further, the necessity of

custodial interrogation for a fair and thorough investigation; this Court is of the

considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of

anticipatory bail in the factual matrix of the case in hand. 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.

dismissed

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