Amritpal Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another

Sumeett Goel, J

The present petition is the seecond attempt 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 petitioner in case bearing FIR No.81 dated 31.07.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Secctions 109, 115(2), 324(4), 1911(3), 190, 351(2), 117(2) of BNNS, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police District Kalanaaur, District Gurdaspur.

The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of pre-arrest/antiicipatory bail before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.02.2025. The relevant part of said order reads as under:-

“ After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks withdrawal of the present petition at this stage.

Dismissed as withdrawn at this stage.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.”

Thereafter, the present petitioon i.e. the second petition for grant of anticippatory/pre-arrest bail has been preferred by the petitioner on and around 088.12.2025.

The FIR in question was lodged on the statement of Bahaddur Singh, son of Balwant Singh, aged abouut 42 years, resident of Dheriwwal, Kiran, Police Station Kalanaur. He stated that he was labourer by professionn. On 30.07.2024 at about 8:30 PM, the complainant alleged that he and his younger brother Mangal Singh were standing near his residennce then accused Jatinder Singh son of Jarnail Singh, Lakhwinder Singh son of Banta Sinngh, Harjinder Singh son of Baanta Singh, Amritpal Singh son of Jarnail Siingh (petitioner herein), Baljinder Singh son of Lakhbir Singh, Gurpreet Singh son of Harjinder Singh, Kuljinder Singh son of Jagir Singh, Sarwan Singh son of Bakshish Singh, Jattinder Singh son of Lakhbir Singh, Balpreet Singh son of Kuldeep Singh, Gagandeep Singh son of Kullbir Singh, annd Malkit Singh (Pump Wala),, all residents of nearby villagges, came therre. All the accused were armed with pistols, a rifle, kirpans, datars and a ganndasi and said that Manpreet Sinngh, son of Kulwant Singh (cousin of the complainant) should be taught a lesson for making a viral video. Amritpal Singh (petitioner herein) raiseed a lalkara, after which accussed Jatinder Singh, Malkit Singh, Amritpal Singh and Lakhwinder Singh fired gunshots with the intention to kill. During the attack, accused Sarwan Singh hit the brother of the complainant - Mangal Singh on the head withh a gandasi. When the complainant tried to intervene to save his brothher, accused Baljinder Singh struck the compplainant on the center of his heead with a daatar. Accused Balpreet Singh hit the brother of the complainannt –

Mangal Singh on his left hand with the reverse side of a datar. Accussed Gurpreet Singh injured the right hand of the complainant with a dattar. Accused Jatinder Singh and Gagandeepp Singh struck the brother of the complainaant - Mangal Singh on his leegs and accused Kuljinder Sinngh injured the left hand of the complainant with a datar. After firing shots, all the accused fled from the spot. Thereafteer, the injured were taken to CHHC Kalanaur for treatment but relatives of Amritpal Singh (petitioner hereein) did not allow admission of the injured, daamaged the vehicle and again fired shots. Thereafter, another vehicle was arranged and the injured were takken to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur, for treatment. On these set of allegations, the FIR in question was registered.

Learned counsel for the petittioner has iterated that the FIR is a fabricated and concocted story just to falsely implicate the petitionner. Learned counsel has further iterated that though the petitioner is alleged to be armed with a pistol and to have raised a lalkara but no firearm injury has been caussed to anyone. Learned counsel has further submitted that no ovvert act or injuury is attributed to the petitioner. According to learned counsel, the injuries suuffered by the complainant and his brother are simple in nature and none of the injuries have been declared dangerous to life. Learned counnsel has emphasized that no empty cartridges or pellets were recovered from the place of occurrence and the present case is one of version and cross-versioon. Learned counsel has further submitted that even assuming arguendo the version off the FIR is taken to be true, the role of the petitioner is passive and he cannot be said to have shared any common object with the armmed assailants. It has been further argued thhat there is no need for custodial interrogattion of the petitioner as nothing incriminating remains to be recovered from him. Furthermore, the pettitioner has no intention of evading the process of law and undertakes to cooperate fully with the investigation. As the peetitioner is ready to join the inveestigation hence no useful purpoose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the basis of these submissioons, the grant of the instant petition is entreated for.

Per contra, learned State coounsel (on the strength of advannce notice) has opposed the grant of anticcipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the present petition is not maintainable, as it constitutess a second petition for anticipatory bail, wiithout there being any substantial change in circumstances, thereby failing both on procedural grounds and on merits. Learned State counsel has sub mitted that the first petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.02.2025 before this Court and neither any prayer waas made nor was any liberty granted to the petitioner to file afreesh with betteer particulars. Accordingly, the State counsel has argued that the instant petition deserves dismissal on this score alone. Learned State counsel, while opposing the plea in hand on merits, submits that the allegationns levelled in the FIR disclosse a grave and heinous offence. Accordingg to learned State counsel, the petitioner has been named in the FIR and has been attributed a specific role of raising a lalkara while being armed witth a pistol. Learned State counsel has contended that the petitioner shared coommon intention and abetted the commission of the offence. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for recovery of weapons, to ascertain the exact sequence of events and to unearth the conspiracy behind the occurrence. Accordinggly, the dismissal of the instant petition is prayed for.

I have heard the learned couunsel for the rival parties and haave gone through the available record of the case.

It would be apposite to refeer herein to a judgment passed by this Courrt in a titled as Bhisham Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2024(3) RCR(Crimminal) 65, relevant whereof readds as under:-

“11. As an epilogue to the aboove rumination, the following principples emerge:

I Second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., 19973 is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof.

IISuch second/succcessive anticipatory bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecuttion or earlier petition was dismissed on merits.

III For the second/suuccessive anticipatory bail petition(s)) to succeed, the petitioner/appplicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substtantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice.

IV No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Accordingly, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s).

V In case a Court chooses to grant second/successsive anticipatory bail petitioon(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being secondd/successive petition(s). In other worrds, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petitionn(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said orrder passed.

VI Once a plea for anticipatory bail has been dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecuttion or dismissed on merits by the High Court, no second/successsive anticipatory bail petition(s) shall be entertained by a Sessions Court.”

The present petition is a second petition for grant of anticipatoory bail by the petitioner. A seecond anticipatory bail petition is indeed maintainable under law; howeveer, it requires demonstration of a substantiaal change in circumstances sincee the earlier petition. It is a settled propositioon of law that such a change must be significant and not merely superficiaal or technical, to warrant reconsideration. This standard ensures that the reemedy of successive bail petitions is not misused through repeated filings buut is available when new and material factors arise that alter the initial assessment of the case. The firrst anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.02.2025. The instant petitiion i.e. second petition for grant of anticipatoory bail has been filed thereafter on and arounnd 08.12.2025. No fresh substaantial change in circumstance has been brouught forward which would indicate that the petitioner is entitled to maintain his second petition for grant of anticipatory bail. From the enttire factual coonspectus brought forward in the present petition, no fresh grouund or circummstance is made out so as to enable the petitioner to file and maintain the second anticipatory bail petition. However, since the first anticipatoory bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn and there was no adjudicatiion on merits thereof, this Court deems it appropriate to decide the instant one on merits thereof as well.

Apart from it being second anticipatory bail, as per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably, serious allegations have beeen levelled against the petitioner. The FIR discloses that the petitionner, alongwithh several co-accused, came at the spot armed with deadly weapoons and threatened the complainant party. The specific allegations against the petitioner is that he was armed with a pisttol and raised a lalkara pursuantt to which the co-accused started firing and atttacking the complainant party with deadly weeapons. At this stage, the role atttributed to the petitioner cannot be said to bee insignificant. In the considereed opinion of this Court, raising a lalkarain such circumstances prima faacie amounts to instigation and abetment. As per the version put forth by the prosecution, on the allegged day of occcurrence, the petitioner, alongwiith co-accused, allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and armed with deadlly weapons launched a violent and premeditaated assault on the complainant party. The incident in question, therefore, does not merely reflect a physical alteration but a targeted and premeditaated act of aggression.

The plea of the petitioner thaat no firearm injury was caused and therefore the allegations of firing are impprobable cannot be accepted at this stage while considering the plea for grantt of anticipatory bail. The absennce of firearm injuries or recovery of empty cartridges is a matter of investigattion and trial. The injuries susttained by the complainant and his brother Mangal Singh, though not declared dangerous to life but are duly supported by medical evidence and corrooborate the occurrence. The use of sharp-edgged weapons and firearms refleccts the seriousness of the offence. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from whichh it can be deeciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. It goes without saying that in the instant case, the FIR specifically names the petitioner and attriibutes to him the role of instigation by raisingg a lalkara. At this nascent sttage of investigation, it would be prematuree to conclude that the petitioneer has no role or shared commmon intention. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary to determinee his exact role and involvement in the conspiracy. The gravity of the offencce and the nature of allegations weigh heavily against the grant of anticipatoory bail.

It is befitting to mention herre that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguardiing individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature off the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free innvestigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, theree is no materiial on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out agaiinst the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigattion, appear to be established a reasonable basis for the accusationns. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigattion. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039, the Hon'ble 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-orieented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterrring 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 interrogaation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument thaat the custodial interrogation is frauught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, suuch an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsiible police officers would conduct themselves in task of disintering offennces would not conduct themselves as offenders.”

In view of the nature and grravity of the allegations, the active role attribbuted to the petitioner, the involvement of deadly weapons and the requiremeent of custodial interrogation for effective investigation and recovery of weapons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand.

In view of the prevenient ratiiocination, it is ordained thus:

(i) The instant petition is devoidd of merits and is hereby dismissed.

(ii) Nothing said hereinabove shhall be deemed to be an expression of opinionn upon merits of the case/investigation.

(iii) Pending application(s), if anyy, shall also stand disposed off.