CHANDIGARH v. Pargat Singh

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab. Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab. Advocate for the complainant. Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, 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 case bearing FIR No. in case bearing FIR No.67 dated registered for the dated 16.04.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103, 115(2), 351(2), 191(3), 190 of offences punishable under Sections 103, 115(2), 351(2), 191(3), 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Section 117(2) of the BNS (for short ‘BNS’) (Section 117(2) of the BNS Ramdass, District Amritsar (Rual). added later on), at Police Station Ramdass, District Amritsar (Rual). added later on)

#2. the complainant, The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the complainant, The gravamen of the FIR in question is that namely, Sukhmanpreet Singh, n 16.04.2026, at about 11:00 A.M., his Sukhmanpreet Singh, on 16.04.2026, at about 11:00 A.M., his n 16.04.2026, at about 11:00 A.M., his father Dalbir Singh left for Awan Mandi, while the complainant, owing to father Dalbir Singh left for Awan Mandi, while the complainant, owing to father Dalbir Singh left for Awan Mandi, while the complainant, owing to father Dalbir Singh left for Awan Mandi, while the complainant, owing to 2026 38319----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----38319 20262026 38319 38319 2222 the ongoing procurement season, reached the market at about 2:30 P.M. Upon his arrival, he noticed that Pargat Singh (petitioner herein), Jaspal Singh @ Jassa, Sunny Soni (President, Awan Mandi), along with 4-5 unidentified persons, were engaged in a heated altercation with his father. Later, accused Sunny Soni raised a lalkara, exhorting the others to teach them a lesson for refusing to part with the shed and proclaiming that the present Government was supporting them. Thereafter, Pargat Singh (petitioner herein) caught hold of Dalbir Singh and, with the intention of causing his death, repeatedly struck him with fist blows on his chest, causing him to collapse on the ground. While Dalbir Singh was lying helpless, accused Jaspal Singh @ Jassa assaulted him with repeated kick blows on his chest, whereas Pargat Singh (petitioner herein) continued to inflict fist blows on his head and forehead despite being aware that he was a patient of high blood pressure. As a consequence of the assault, Dalbir Singh became unconscious. When the complainant attempted to rescue his father, the unidentified co-accused restrained him and thrashed him. It is further alleged that Jaspal Singh @ Jassa twisted the middle finger of the complainant. Upon the complainant raising an alarm, all the accused fled from the spot while extending threats of dire consequences. Thereafter, the complainant and his uncle, Harjinder Singh, immediately shifted Dalbir Singh to Bedi Hospital, Ramdass, where the attending doctors declared him brought dead.

#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. 2026 38319----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----38319 20262026 38319 38319 3333 Learned counsel has submitted that, assuming arguendo, the prosecution version is taken to be correct, no offence punishable under Section 103 of the BNS (erstwhile Section 302 of the IPC) is made out against the petitioner. It has been contended that the petitioner had neither any knowledge nor any reason to believe that the deceased was suffering from high blood pressure or any cardiac ailment, and, therefore, the requisite intention or knowledge necessary to attract the offence of murder is conspicuously absent. Learned counsel has submitted that the deceased was, in fact, a chronic heart patient suffering from high blood pressure. It has further been contended that, on the day of the alleged occurrence, co- accused Sunny Soni had been declared the President of the Mandi by its members. The complainant-side, having strained relations with petitioner-side, was dissatisfied with the said development, and a heated exchange ensued. According to learned counsel, the deceased suffered a cardiac arrest on account of his pre-existing medical condition during the said altercation, and not as a result of any assault attributable to the petitioner. It has been contended that the petitioner has not been alleged to be armed with any weapon. Learned counsel has further argued that as per Post Mortem Report dated 17.04.2026, injuries inflicted were merely blunt in nature and were not sufficient to cause death in normal cause. Learned counsel has submitted that Histopathological report dated 19.05.2026 clearly shows that heart of the deceased was suffering from Hypertrophy, which is already a very serious medical condition.

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 2026 38319----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----38319 20262026 38319 38319 4444 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.

#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 caused injuries to the father of the complainant, which resulted in his death. It is further argued that the accused had also caused injury to the complainant on his middle finger.

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 and his co-accused gave fist/ kick blows to the father of the complainant and ultimately, he died and, thus, he ought not to be extended the concession of anticipatory bail. 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. 2026 38319----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----38319 20262026 38319 38319 5555

#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 first grappled with the deceased and then repeatedly delivered fist blows on his chest, causing him to fall to the ground. Even after the deceased had collapsed and was lying in a helpless condition, the petitioner continued to assault him by inflicting repeated fist blows on his head and forehead, while co-accused Jaspal Singh @ Jassa simultaneously rained kick blows on his chest. Perusal of the prosecution case, prima facie, shows that when the complainant attempted to rescue his father, the unidentified persons restrained and assaulted him, while Jaspal Singh @ Jassa twisted his middle finger, thereby preventing any immediate intervention. Thus, the petitioner has been attributed a specific, overt and pivotal role in the commission of the offence. The allegations disclose a brutal and concerted assault resulting in the death of the deceased. Further, it has been observed by the trial Court while declining the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner that the plea of the petitioner regarding the deceased having medical history and that he died due to cardiac arrest shall be considered during trial as the same is a matter of evidence/ trial. The role attributed to the petitioner is specific, direct and active, and his prima facie complicity stands substantiated from the material available on record.

6.1. 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.

#7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding 2026 38319----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----38319 20262026 38319 38319 6666 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 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) cause impediment in effective investigation. In StateStateStateState v. Anil Sharma, (1997) v. Anil Sharma, (1997) v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039]1039]1039]1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 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.””””

#8. In view of the seriousness and gravity of allegations and the role attributed to the petitioner, 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 and pose a threat to the safety and well-being of the victim/ complainant and other witnesses. 2026 38319----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----38319 20262026 38319 38319 7777

#9. 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, the investigation is still underway and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is being sought for effective investigation and to unearth the prosecution case. The petition is, dismissed. thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed dismissed dismissed

#10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.

#11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE July 16 , 2026 July 16, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 July 16 July 16 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No