Kamaljit Singh v. State of Punjab

IN Kamaljit S

State of P

Date of d Date of U

CORAM Present:

SUMEET

¶1Nagarik S for grant No.38 da Sections 1 Nakodar,

¶2been regi who alleg Sarpanch Singh (pe with a sic the petiti complaina body. The THE HIGH COURT OF PUN CHANDIG

Singh

V/s Punjab

decision: 04.05.2026 Uploading : 04.05.2026 M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Mr. Harshdeep Singh Sethi, A Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AA ***** T GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been file Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereina of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to ated 27.04.2025, registered fo 115(2), 118(1), 351(3), 118(2), 1 District Jalandhar. The gravamen of the FIR in stered on the statement of comp ged that on 26.04.2025 at abou Rupinder Singh was present nea etitioner herein) arrived at the spo ckle-shaped sharp-edged weapo ioner, without provocation, ha ant and inflicted multiple blow e complainant, in an attempt to

NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH

CRM-M-24954-2026

....Petitioner

....Respondent SUMEET GOEL Advocate for the petitioner. AG Punjab. ed under Section 482 of Bharat after to be referred as 'the BNS o the petitioner in case bearing F r the offences punishable und 109 of BNS, 2023 at Police Stati n question reflects that the FIR h plainant namely Bhupinder Sin ut 3:30 PM, while he along w ar Nakodar Bus Stand, the Kama ot in a black Scorpio vehicle arm on. It has been further alleged t ad launched an attack upon ws aimed at the vital parts of save himself, sustained injuries

iya S') FIR der ion gh, with aljit med hat his

his hands continued complaina he tried to the victim hospital. T grievous i scene of complaina registered

¶3levelled i between complaina been lodg been regis regarding present ca question course o deliberate the petitio specific r vague an s and fingers. It has been fu d the assault and caused injur ant and also inflicted injuries up o intervene. On account of the m ms (i.e. the complainant and S The medical record reflects mult injury attributed to a sharp-edge occurrence, the accused-petitio ant. On these set of allegation d and investigation ensued. Learned counsel for the r has been falsely implicated in t in the FIR are wholly concocte the parties. Learned counse ant nurses a grudge against the ged as a counterblast to FIR N stered at the instance of the petit an earlier occurrence. It has ase arises out of a version and as to who was the aggressor c f trial. According to learned ely suppressed the true and mater oner as the sole aggressor. It h role has been attributed to the nd unsubstantiated. It has been

urther alleged that the petition ries on the arm and head of on Sarpanch Rupinder Singh wh multiple injuries sustained by bo Sarpanch), they were admitted tiple injuries, including at least o ed weapon. While fleeing from oner had extended threats to s, the FIR in question came to petitioner has iterated that the instant case and the allegatio ed and motivated by prior enm el has further iterated that petitioner and the present FIR h o.61 dated 26.04.2025, which h tioner against the complainant s s been further contended that d cross-version and, therefore, an only be determined during d counsel, the complainant h rial facts and has falsely implica has been further submitted that petitioner and the allegations n further argued that there is

ner hen oth to one be ons mity ide ted

independe alleged o himself s prosecutio case. It h the petitio facts and anteceden Moreover useful pu strength anticipato

¶4anticipato specifical assaulted Learned occurrenc came arm parts of t injury. Fu version a grievous i the place ent or corroborative material to offence. Learned counsel has em sustained injuries in the earlie on version and false implicatio has been further submitted that n oner and, therefore, the custodial circumstances of the case. Fur nts; has deep roots in society r fleeing from justice or tamperi r, the petitioner is ready to joi urpose would be served by send of these submissions, a pray ory bail to the petitioner. Per contra, learned State c ory bail to the petitioner by arg ly named in the FIR with clea the complainant and another in State counsel has iterated tha ce clearly reflects that the petitio med with a deadly weapon and the body of the complainant w urthermore, the medical evidence and reflects multiple injuries, in nature. It has been further su of occurrence, prima facie sup

o connect the petitioner with mphasized that the petitioner h er occurrence which falsifies on of the petitioner in the pres no recovery is to be effected fro l interrogation is not required in rthermore, the petitioner has cle and there is no likelihood of ing with the prosecution eviden in the investigation and hence ding him behind the bars. On yer has been made for grant counsel has opposed the grant guing that the petitioner has be ar and direct allegations of havi njured with a sharp-edged weap at the nature and manner of oner was the main aggressor, w inflicted repeated blows on vi with an intention to cause serio e on record corroborates the ocu one of which has been declar ubmitted that the CCTV footage pports the prosecution version a

ent om ean nce. of of een ing on. who ital ous ular red e of

connects counsel h and, there effective has been concessio there is ev with evid which it w

¶5gone throu

¶6Hon'ble S Kumar C reads as u

the petitioner with the commiss has emphasized that the weapon efore, the custodial interrogation investigation and for unearthing further contended that in ca on of anticipatory bail, it may ad very likelihood of the petitioner dence. Considering the gravity was committed, the dismissal of t I have heard the learned cou ugh the available record of the c It would be apposite to refer Supreme Court in the case title C.K. and another, 2022(4) RCR under: "12. In a case containing suc ought not to have exercised its ju arrest, as the Investigating Of investigation to its logical con appearance before the Investiga from subjecting Respondent No.1 be fruitful to find out the prima f are of extreme serious in nature. xxx

xxx xxx

xxx "15. Be that as it may, even ass is not required for custodial inter Court ought not to have granted d

¶16We are dealing with a m (appellant herein) has come anticipatory bail granted by the

sion of the offence. Learned St n of offence is yet to be recover n of the petitioner is necessary g the complete chain of events. ase the petitioner is granted dversely affect the investigation, influencing witnesses or tamperi of the offence and the manner the petition in hand is prayed for unsel for the rival parties and ha case. herein to a judgment passed by ed as Sumitha Pradeep vs. Ar R (Criminal) 977, relevant where ch serious allegations, the High Co urisdiction in granting protection aga Officer deserves freehand to take nclusion. It goes without saying t ating Officer who, has been preven 1 to custodial interrogation, can har facie substance in the allegations, wh

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx suming it a case where Respondent N rrogation, we are satisfied that the H discretionary relief of anticipatory bai matter wherein the original complain before this Court praying that e High Court to the accused should

tate red for It , as ing r in r. ave run eof ourt inst that nted rdly hich No.1 High il. nant

¶7serious al in the pr inflicted m the petitio complaina a direct an not genera deadly we case whic cancelled. To put it in other wor Court wrongly exercised its discr the accused in a very serious crim passed by the High Court grantin be quashed and set aside. In m noticed one common argumen interrogation is required and, the There appears to be a serious m custodial interrogation is made would be a good ground to interrogation can be one of the r with other grounds while decidi bail. There may be many cases in accused may not be required, but case against the accused should be granted anticipatory bail. The hearing an anticipatory bail app facie case put up against the a offence should be looked into alo Custodial interrogation can be on bail. However, even if custod necessitated, by itself, cannot be a As per the case put forth in legations have been levelled aga resent case disclose a grave a r is alleged to have launched an multiple blows aimed at the vital oner, armed with sickle-shaped ant and subjected him to assault nd active role in the commission al or omnibus in nature but disc eapon. The medical evidence pr ch reflects multiple injuries, incl

rds, the complainant says that the H retion while granting anticipatory bai me like POCSO and, therefore, the or ng anticipatory bail to the accused sho many anticipatory bail matters, we h t being canvassed that no custod erefore, anticipatory bail may be gran misconception of law that if no case out by the prosecution, then that al o grant anticipatory bail. Custod relevant aspects to be considered alo ing an application seeking anticipat n which the custodial interrogation of t that does not mean that the prima fa be ignored or overlooked and he sho e first and foremost thing that the co pplication should consider is the pri accused. Thereafter, the nature of ong with the severity of the punishme ne of the grounds to decline anticipat dial interrogation is not required a ground to grant anticipatory bail." n the FIR in question, indubitab ainst the petitioner. The allegatio and heinous offence wherein n attack upon the complainant a l parts of his body. As per the F sharp-edged weapon, waylaid . The petitioner has been attribu n of the offence. The allegations lose a specific act of assault wit rima facie supports the prosecuti luding grievous injury, caused by

High il to rder ould ave dial ted. for one dial ong tory f the acie ould ourt ima ent. tory or bly, ons and IR, ted are h a ion

sharp-edg cross-vers however, bail when record co suffered g nature of in which demonstra nay plaus deciphere FIR.

¶8cross-case while con that while consider t accused, tampering considera and the C determine course of prima fac implicatio ged weapon. The plea with regar sion is a matter that may be ex the same cannot be made a sol n there are specific and grave all orroborates and prima facie est grievous injury and lends suppo injuries cannot be termed as sim h the alleged assault was ca ates the violent and aggressive c sible cause has been shown, at ed that the petitioner has been f Furthermore, the plea of fa e is a disputed question of fact nsidering a petition for grant of e exercising jurisdiction under the nature and gravity of the ac the likelihood of fleeing from g with evidence of influen ation of evidence/material at the Court cannot go into the deta e its admissibility, which is a f trial. At this stage, there is n cie case is not made out agains on on account of previous enmity

rd to the existence of a version a xamined during the course of tri le ground for grant of anticipato legations. The medical evidence tablishes that the complainant h ort to the prosecution version. T mple or self inflicted. The mann arried out using deadly weap conduct of the petitioner. No cau t this stage, from which it can falsely implicated into the pres false implication on account of which cannot be adjudicated up anticipatory bail. It is well sett Section 482 BNS, the Court m ccusation, the role attributed to m justice and the possibility cing witnesses. The scope stage of anticipatory bail is limi ailed appreciation of evidence matter to be decided during no material on record to hold t st the petitioner. The plea of fa y is vague and unsubstantiated.

and ial, ory on The ner pon use be ent f a pon led must of of ted or hat

material h motive fo cannot be has come investigat accusation investigat 1039], the

¶9attributed custodial considere anticipato

¶10has been placed on record to sho or false implication. Bald asser e made the basis for grant of ant e on record, including the m tion, appear to be establishe ns. Thus, it is not appropriate r, as it would necessarily tion. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1 e Supreme Court held as under :

"6. We find force in the submissi qualitatively more elicitation-orient well-ensconced with a favourable or case like this, effective interrogation advantage in disinterring many usefu would have been concealed. Success suspected person knows that he is arrest bail order during the time he in such a condition would reduce t custodial interrogation is fraught subjected to third-degree methods n argument can be advanced by all a has to presume that responsible poli a responsible manner and that thos offences would not conduct themselve Considering the nature and d to the petitioner, the medical ev interrogation for effective inv d opinion that the petitioner do ory bail in the factual milieu of th In view of the prevenient rati

ow existence of any such enmity rtions without supporting eviden icipatory bail. The material wh medical evidence and prelimina ed a reasonable basis for to grant anticipatory bail to cause impediment in effect 1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (C (SCC p. 189, para 6) ion of CBI that custodial interrogation ted than questioning a suspect who rder under Section 438 of the Code. I n of a suspected person is of tremend ul informations and also materials wh s in such interrogation would elude if well protected and insulated by a p is interrogated. Very often interrogat to a mere ritual. The argument that with the danger of the person be need not be countenanced, for, such ccused in all criminal cases. The Co ice officers would conduct themselves e entrusted with the task of disinterr es as offenders." gravity of the allegations, the r vidence and the requirement of vestigation, this Court is of oes not deserve the concession he case in hand. iocination, it is ordained thus:

y or nce ich ary ive Cri) n is o is In a dous hich f the pre-tion eing an ourt s in ring ole

(i)

(ii) of opinion

(iii)

May 04, 2 Ajay

The instant petition is devoid Nothing said hereinabove sh n upon merits of the case/investig Pending application(s), if any

2026

d of merits and is hereby dismiss hall be deemed to be an expressi gation. y, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE

sed.