Mr. Raghav Soni, Advocate for & Anr. v. Anil Sharma & Ors.

Mr. Raghav Soni, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG Punjab. Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG Punjab Mr. Sartaj Singh Gill, Advocate for the complainant. Mr. Sartaj Singh Gill, Advocate for the complainant. ***** ***** ***** ***** , J. (Oral) SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 438 of the Cr. P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the Section 438 of the Cr. P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in in case bearing FIR No.94 dated registered for the dated 10.06.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 118(2) of the offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) (erstwhile Sections 324, 326 of Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Sections 324, 326 of the IPC), at Majitha, District Amritsar Rural. Police Station Majitha, District Amritsar Rural. Police Station

#2. the complainant, The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the complainant, The gravamen of the FIR in question is that namely, Baldev Singh alleged that

24.05.2026, the petitioner, Rajanbir Baldev Singh alleged that on 24.05.2026, the petitioner, Rajanbir 24.05.2026, the petitioner, Rajanbir Singh, armed with a datar, along with his mother Singh, armed with a Tejinder Kaur, who was his mother – Tejinder Kaur, who was anded, began demolishing the common passage with the aid of a empty-handed, began demolishing the common passage with the aid of a anded, began demolishing the common passage with the aid of a anded, began demolishing the common passage with the aid of a tractor. Upon the complainant objecting to the same, Tejinder Kaur raised a tractor. Upon the complainant objecting to the same, Tejinder Kaur raised a tractor. Upon the complainant objecting to the same, Tejinder Kaur raised a tractor. Upon the complainant objecting to the same, Tejinder Kaur raised a 2026 38055----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----38055 20262026 38055 38055 2222 lalkara, whereafter the petitioner inflicted a blow with the datar on the complainant’s left arm. It is further alleged that the petitioner delivered additional blows with the said weapon on the complainant’s left bicep and the left side of his hip/waist. Meanwhile, Tejinder Kaur caught hold of the complainant by his hair and dragged him, and both the accused kicked the complainant. On the complainant raising an alarm, the accused fled from the spot.

#3. Learned 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 counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR. Learned counsel has submitted that it is a case of version and cross-version. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has not given any alleged injury to the complainant-side, whereas, the mother of the petitioner had received 04 injuries, out of which, 01 has been declared as grievous in nature. Learned counsel has further submitted that alleged incident occurred on 24.05.2026, but the FIR in question has been registered on 10.06.2026, i.e., after an unexplained/ inordinate delay of 17 days, which creates doubt on the prosecution version and renders the same concocted one and just an afterthought.

3.1. Learned 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 2026 38055----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----38055 20262026 38055 38055 3333 him behind the bars. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

#4. 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 is argued that the petitioner along with his co-accused demolished the common passage and when the complainant objected, the petitioner gave a datar blow on the left arm of the complainant and thereafter, gave more blows with the aid of datar which hit left bicep and left side of hip/ waist of the complainant. It is further stated that one injury has been opined as grievous in nature.

4.1. It is, thus, argued that given the severity of the offence, there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioner may abscond from the process of justice and/or tamper with the prosecution witnesses/ evidence, if he is enlarged on bail. Learned State counsel has 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.

4.2. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of petition in hand by arguing that there are direct/ serious allegations against the petitioner. It has been contended that the petitioner caused injuries to the complainant with sharp edged weapon, and one of the injuries has been declared as grievous in nature. Learned counsel has further submitted that, in case, the petitioner is granted the concession of anticipatory bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice as also interfere/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses/ evidence. 2026 38055----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----38055 20262026 38055 38055 4444 On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition in hand is entreated for.

#5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.

#6. As per the prosecution case and the material available on record, prima facie, serious and specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It is borne out from the record that the petitioner has been specifically attributed the role of inflicting injuries upon the complainant with a sharp-edged weapon, namely, a datar. The prosecution case, prima facie, reveals that the petitioner, along with his mother/co- accused, had demolished the common passage. When the complainant objected to the said act, the co-accused raised a lalkara, whereupon the petitioner inflicted a datar blow on the left arm of the complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner inflicted further blows, which landed on the left bicep and the left side of the hip/waist of the complainant. The aforesaid allegations find prima facie corroboration from the medico-legal report, which records an incised wound measuring 3.5 cm over the left pelvis, an incised wound measuring 5 cm over the mid humerus near the left elbow, and another incised wound measuring 2 cm over the left elbow. As per the medico-legal opinion, the injury sustained over the left pelvis has been declared grievous in nature. Thus, the role attributed to the petitioner is specific, direct and active, and his prima facie complicity stands substantiated from the material available on record.

#7. 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 2026 38055----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----38055 20262026 38055 38055 5555 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 the preliminary investigation, appears 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 StateStateStateState v. v. v. v.