AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the BNSS') (earlier Section 438 of the Cr. P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.78 dated 04.06.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 333, 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 190, 191(3), 351(2), 303(2) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Qadian, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur.
As per factual matrix of the case in hand as stated in the order passed by the concerned Sessions Court while declining the bail plea of the petitioner, the petitioner has been attributed the role of raising lalkara and giving datar blow upon the complainant, which landed on her arm.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR. It has also been argued that there is an unexplained delay of 09 days in the registration of the FIR, inasmuch as the alleged incident occurred on 26.05.2026, whereas the FIR came to be registered only on 04.06.2026, thereby rendering the prosecution case highly doubtful. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that, in fact, the complainant-side had caused injuries to Ramanpreet Singh, the petitioner's brother, and injury No.5 sustained by him was declared grievous in nature. It has been contended that the dispute between the parties arose on account of the non-payment of ₹3,00,000/-, which the petitioner had advanced to the complainant's husband as a loan. It has been argued that when the petitioner demanded repayment of the said amount, the complainant-side refused to return the money and, with a dishonest intention, concocted a false story leading to the registration of the present FIR against the petitioner. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the injury attributed to the petitioner was on a non-vital part of the body.
Learned senior counsel has asserted that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. 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 petitioner is ready to join the investigation and, hence, no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.
Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. It has been iterated that the petitioner had given datar blow on the arm of the complainant. Given the severity and gravity of the offence, there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioner may abscond or tamper with the evidence, if he is enlarged on bail. Learned State counsel has further iterated that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative for the purpose of effective and fair investigation and to unearth the case of the prosecution. On these submissions, dismissal of the present petition is entreated for.
I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.
As per the prosecution case, it is borne out that serious and grave allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. As per the prosecution case, it is, prima facie, borne out that the petitioner, armed with a datar, along with co-accused Ramanpreet Singh, armed with a stick (danda), and four unidentified persons, forcibly entered the complainant's house. The petitioner allegedly raised a lalkara exhorting the others to apprehend whoever was present in the house. Thereafter, the petitioner is stated to have inflicted a datar blow upon the complainant, which landed on her arm. It is further alleged that co-accused – Ramanpreet Singh struck the complainant with a stick, causing injuries to her left shoulder and left wrist. The prosecution further asserts that injury No.1 has been stated to be grievous in nature. Thus, the allegations are not only specific but also find corroboration from the medical evidence collected during the course of investigation. The nature of the allegations, the manner in which the assault is alleged to have been carried out, and the specific role attributed to the petitioner prima facie disclose his active involvement in the commission of the alleged offences.
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.
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 wider 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 establish 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."
In view of the seriousness and gravity of the allegations, this Court finds no compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the petitioner. Granting bail, at this stage, would not only undermine the administration of justice but may also embolden the accused.
In view of above, 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.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.