[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darbara Singh vs State Of Punjab on 22 May, 2026
275
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.23894 of 2026
Date of decision: 22.05.2026
Darbara Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Present :- Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Surinderjit S. Nahar, AAG, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
Mr. Sultan Singh Gill, Advocate
for the complainant.
*****
MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 BNSS (old
provision Section 438 Cr.P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner
in a criminal case arising out of FIR No.0022 dated 17.02.2026 registered
under Sections 333, 118(2), 115(2), 3(5), 351(2) of BNS, 2023 (old
provisions Sections 452, 326, 323, 34, 506 IPC, 1860) at Police Station
Majitha, District Amritsar Rural.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 18.01.2026 at
about 10:00 PM to 11:00 PM, when the complainant and her husband
Chanchal Singh were sleeping in their house, Princepreet Singh armed with
datar, Darbara Singh armed with kirch, Jagdish Singh armed with datar,
authenticity of this order/judgment
Jashanpreet Singh armed with kirch and Akashdeep Singh armed with
datar trespassed into the house of the complainant from the terrace of their
house. It is further alleged that Darbara Singh raised lalkara that the son of
the complainant namely Gurpreet Singh be sent out of the room, whereafter
all the accused broke open the door. It is further alleged that Princepreet
Singh gave a datar blow on the head of the complainant, Darbara Singh
gave a kirch blow on her head, Jagdish Singh gave a datar blow on her
back and Jashanpreet Singh gave a kirch blow on her neck. It is also
alleged that Akashdeep Singh and Princepreet Singh gave further datar
blows on her head. When the husband of the complainant namely Chanchal
Singh came forward to rescue her, all the accused allegedly inflicted
several injuries upon him and thereafter, fled away from the spot after
extending threats and breaking household articles. On the basis of the
aforesaid allegations, the present FIR was registered against the petitioner
and other co-accused.
3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of
previous enmity between the parties and a false story has been concocted
by the complainant. It is further contended that the petitioner was neither
present at the alleged place of occurrence nor inflicted any injury upon the
complainant or her husband. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
argued that there is an unexplained delay of about one month in registration
of the FIR, as the alleged occurrence pertains to 18.01.2026 whereas the
FIR came to be registered on 17.02.2026, which renders the prosecution
authenticity of this order/judgment
version doubtful. It has also been contended that the MLRs of the
complainant and her husband are dated 21.01.2026 and 29.01.2026
respectively, whereas the occurrence allegedly took place on 18.01.2026. It
has further been argued that the allegations levelled in the FIR are false and
frivolous and that the petitioner has no role to play in the alleged
occurrence. It is also contended that the final investigation report has not
yet been presented and the trial is likely to take considerable time. Lastly, it
has been submitted that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and
he is ready to join investigation and cooperate with the investigating
agency, therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, assisted by learned
counsel for the complainant, has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail
and submitted that serious allegations have been levelled against the
petitioner. It has been argued that a specific role has been attributed to the
petitioner, who is alleged to have inflicted injury No.2 on the person of the
complainant with a kirch on the left side of her head. The said injury has
been declared grievous in nature caused by a sharp-edged weapon, thereby
attracting the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC/118(2) BNS. It has
further been submitted that thereafter, all the accused persons also caused
injuries to the husband of the complainant namely Chanchal Singh and
injuries No.3 and 4 on his person have also been declared grievous in
nature caused by sharp-edged weapons, attracting the offence under
Section 326 IPC/118(2) BNS. Learned State counsel has further submitted
that overall three injuries, i.e injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 5, on the person of the
authenticity of this order/judgment
complainant have been declared grievous in nature caused by sharp-edged
weapons, thereby attracting the offence under Section 326 IPC/118(2) BNS
and most of the said injuries are on the head, which is a vital part of the
body. It has also been argued that though there is some delay in conducting
the MLR, however, it has been specifically mentioned in the medical
record that most of the injuries on the person of the husband of the
complainant were stitched wounds, which clearly indicates that the injured
had initially received treatment from some other hospital and thereafter the
MLR was conducted, therefore, no benefit can be derived by the petitioner
from the said delay.
5. Keeping in view the specific role attributed to the petitioner,
the nature of allegations and the fact that injury attributed to the petitioner
on the head of the complainant has been declared grievous in nature caused
by a sharp-edged weapon attracting the offence under Section 326 IPC/
118(2) BNS, this Court does not find the petitioner entitled to the
concession of anticipatory bail.
6. Furthermore, out of the total injuries suffered by the
complainant and her husband, five injuries, i.e three on the person of the
complainant and two on the person of her husband, have been declared
grievous in nature caused by sharp-edged weapons attracting the offence
under Section 326 IPC/118(2) BNS and most of the injuries are on the
head, which is a vital organ of the body. Mere delay in registration of FIR
or conducting the MLR, in the facts and circumstances of the present case,
is not fatal to the prosecution case so as to entitle the petitioner to the
authenticity of this order/judgment
extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
8. However, nothing observed herein shall be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case.
9. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(MANDEEP PANNU)
22.05.2026 JUDGE
neetu
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
