[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Nishan Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 16 March, 2026

CRM-
CRM-M-7833-
      7833-2026
                                                                               1




119
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                CRM-
                                CRM-M-7833-
                                      7833-2026

Nishan Singh and another
                                                                 ....Petitionerss
                                        versus

State of Punjab
                                                                ....Respondent

Date of Decision: March 16,
                        16, 2026
Date of Uploading: March 16,
                         16, 2026

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:
Present      Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner
                                               petitioners.

             Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG Punjab
                                      Punjab.

                                        *****
SUMEET GOEL,
       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 arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner petitioners, in case bearing DDR

No.23 23 dated 16.05.2024, registered under Sections 32 324/ 323/ 506/ 6/ 148/ 149 of

the IPC (Section Section 326 of IPC added later on), at Police Station Ajnala, District

Amritsar, in case FIR No.82 dated 14.05.2024, registered under Sections 302/

307/ 324/ 323/ 323/ 506/ 427/ 148/ 149 of IPC, at Police Station Ajnala, District

Amritsar.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner petitioners is that in

the cross-version, version, i.e., GD in question, Boota Singh son of Darshan Singh

alleged that on 11.05.2024, at about 8:00-8:30 8:30 P.M. P.M., he along with Gurmeet

Singh son of Sardara Singh was returning to village Ballarhwal on a tractor

make Sonalika, Sonalika, which he himself was driving. On the way, another Sonalika

1 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-7833- 7833-2026

tractor was seen approaching from the opposite direction and the driver of that

tractor collided with their tractor. The said tractor was allegedly being driven

by Balwinder Singh son of Puran Singh, and Punan Singh son of Dhanna Singh

(empty handed), Nishan Singh (petitioner No.1 herein) armed with a datar,

Ranjit Singh (petitioner No.2 herein) armed with a datar, and Puran Singh

armed with a datar were sitting on it. It is further alleged that Punan Singh

raised a lalkara, exhorting the others to catch hold of Gurmeet Singh and teach

him a lesson for abusing him earlier. Thereafter, Punan Singh allegedly took a

pistol from Balwinder Singh and fired a shot in the air. When Boota Singh and

Gurmeet Singh tried to run away after getting down from the tractor, Mukha

Singh armed with a datar, Joginder Singh armed with a dang, Nanak Singh

armed with a sotta, Dhanna Singh, and about 10-12 other unidentified persons,

who were empty handed, also reached the spot. During the occurrence, Nishan

Singh (petitioner No.1 herein) gave a datar blow to Gurmeet Singh, which hit

him on his right wrist. Thereafter, Ranjit Singh (petitioner No.2 herein) gave

another datar blow, which struck Gurmeet Singh on the back side of his left

hand. Mukha Singh then allegedly inflicted a datar blow on the right shoulder

of Gurmeet Singh, followed by Puran Singh, who gave a datar blow on the calf

of his right leg. In the meantime, Boota Singh fell on the ground, and Joginder

Singh allegedly gave a dang blow on the chest of Gurmeet Singh. When Boota

Singh attempted to rescue Gurmeet Singh from the alleged assault, Puran Singh

allegedly fired a shot from his pistol, which struck Boota Singh on his right

thigh, causing him to fall on the ground. Nanak Singh also allegedly gave a

sotta blow on his back. Upon this, they raised an alarm which attracted Jagir

Singh, Mukhtar Singh and Jagtar Singh to the spot, whereafter the alleged

assailants fled from the place of occurrence along with their respective

weapons.

2 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-7833- 7833-2026

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has iterated that a bare perusal

of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioners are

concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further

iterated that the petitioners have been falsely implicated into the FIR in

question. Learned counsel has further iterated that it is a case of version and

cross-version. Learned counsel has further argued that the injuries attributed to

the petitioners are on non-vital part of the body. Learned counsel has argued

that injured has been discharged from the hospital. Learned counsel has further

argued that there is an unexplained delay in lodging the GD in question.

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 petitioners. 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. On the aforesaid

submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

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

anticipatory bail to the petitioners by arguing that the offence committed by the

petitioners is serious in nature. Learned State counsel has iterated that there are

specific and direct allegations against the petitioners. Given the severity of the

offence and no clean antecedents, there exists a substantial likelihood that the

petitioners may abscond or tamper with the evidence, if they are enlarged on

bail. Learned State counsel has iterated that the custodial interrogation of the

petitioners is imperative for the purpose of effective and fair investigation and

3 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-7833- 7833-2026

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 petitioners,

along with other co-accused, formed an unlawful assembly and were armed

with deadly weapons such as datars, dangs, and sotta, and thereafter attacked

Gurmeet Singh and Boota Singh. The allegations in the cross-version

specifically attribute active and specific roles to the accused persons in

inflicting injuries upon the victims. As per the allegations, petitioner No.1 -

Nishan Singh and petitioner No.2 - Ranjit Singh were armed with deadly

weapons, namely datars, and actively participated in the assault upon the

injured Gurmeet Singh. It is specifically alleged that petitioner No.1 - Nishan

Singh inflicted a datar blow on the right wrist of Gurmeet Singh, while

petitioner No.2 - Ranjit Singh also inflicted a datar blow on the back side of the

left hand of the injured. As per prosecution case, the allegations against the

petitioners are supported by the specific attribution of injuries caused by them

with sharp-edged weapons, which prima facie establishes their direct

involvement in the occurrence. The nature of the allegations clearly shows the

active role and participation of both the petitioners in the commission of the

alleged offence. The gravity of the allegations and the manner in which the

assault was carried out demonstrate the serious nature of the offence.

6.1. The petitioners have been specifically named in the FIR, and the

nature of the injuries attributed to the petitioners and co-accused is serious

reflecting the severity of the alleged act. No cause nay plausible cause has been

4 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-7833- 7833-2026

shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioners have

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 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 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 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."

8. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, the role attributed to

the petitioners and co-accused, this Court finds no compelling ground to extend

the benefit of discretionary relief to the petitioners. Granting bail, at this stage,

5 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-7833- 7833-2026

would not only undermine the administration of justice but may also embolden

the accused and pose a threat to the safety and well-being of the victim and

other witnesses. Further, in view of the necessity of custodial interrogation 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 petitioners