Raj Kumar @ Raju Nai vs State Of Punjab

Sandeep Moudgil, J

Prayer

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 38 dated 01.04.2018 under Sections 307, 323, 148, 149 of IPC, 1860 registered at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar Rural (Annexure P-1).

2 Contention

On behalf of the petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he was present at the spot as no specific role is assigned to him and no injury is alleged to have been caused by him. The attention of this Court has been drawn to an order dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed in CRM-M-39084-2025 vide which co-accused Harpal Singh @ Bhalu has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court. Learned counsel undertakes, on behalf of the petitioner, that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation.

Notice of motion.

On behalf of the State/complainant

On the asking of Court, Mr. Rajiv Verma, Addl. AG. Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent/State. He prays for dismissal of the present petition on the ground that the petitioner allegedly actively participated in the commission of the offence and that the weapon used in the offence is yet to be recovered, necessitating custodial interrogation of the petitioner. However, he could not produce any material to incriminate the petitioner or connect him with the alleged offence.

Analysis

In the present case, the only allegation against the petitioner is that he was present at the spot, and no specific role has been attributed to him nor any injury caused by him. It is also noted that co-accused Harpal Singh @ Bhalu has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure P-2). Even otherwise, the petitioner has already undertaken in para 12 & 13 of the petitioner that he will join the investigation.

In the light of above, this Court is of the considered view that there is no valid or cogent reason to deny the bail to the present petitioner, wherein he has bona fide intentions and is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate for furtherance of the same so that the final report can be submitted by the Investigating Agency in time.

Relief:-

Hence, the petitioner is directed to be released on anticipatory bail subject to his joining investigation with the Investigating Officer concerned within a period of one week from today, on furnishing of personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, which are reproduced below:-

‘When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including-

(i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

(iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section.’

However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner does not comply with the aforesaid direction of joining the investigation within a period of one week, the order passed by this Court today shall automatically stands cancelled.

In the aforesaid terms, the present petition stands allowed.