The High Court
Case Details
CRM-M-44637-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 4 CRM-M-44637-2025 Reserved on : 25.08.2025 Pronounced on : 27.08.2025 Omkar Singh State of Punjab VERSUS ..... Petitioner ..... Respondent
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. ***** 1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner is seeking grant of anticipatory bail in a case, arising out of FIR No.110 dated 26.07.2025 under Sections 109, 304, 351(2), 351(3), 115(2), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, Police Station Cantt. Ferozepur, District Ferozepur. 2. Succinctly the facts projected by the prosecution are that, son of injured/complainant-Rajinder Singh was married with daughter of petitioner. According to the prosecution, the relationship between the son of Rajinder Singh, namely Ramandeep Singh, with the daughter of the petitioner, namely Raminder Kaur Gill, was strained and there was a case filed by GAURAV THAKUR 2025.08.28 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-44637-2025 2 Raminder Kaur Gill against Ramandeep Singh and the complainant. According to the complainant, on 24.07.2025, he had visited the Court to attend proceedings in the abovementioned case and the Court posted the abovementioned case for next day i.e. 25.07.2025. According to complainant, on 24.07.2025, when he came out of the Court, the petitioner- Omkar Singh threatened him and demanded Rs.17,00,000/- for the compromise. According to complainant, it was also threatened by the petitioner that otherwise he will kill him. 3. It has further been alleged by the complainant that on 25.07.2025, he went to the Court compound to attend proceedings in Innova car, and that at 09:30 am, when he alighted from the abovesaid car at Muktsar-Ferozepur Road, to proceed towards Court, the petitioner Omkar Singh and 5-6 unknown persons armed with baseball bat and iron rod came there. According to the complainant, petitioner-Omkar Singh picked up a pistol, kept below the belt, and on gunpoint threatened the complainant to stop. As per complainant, out of fear of being shot, when he stopped, the petitioner exhorted to teach him a lesson. Thereafter, all the assailants attacked the complainant and with an intention to kill inflicted injuries on his person, including the injuries on his hand and legs. It was specifically mentioned by the complainant that during the course of incident, the petitioner placed the abovementioned pistol below the belt and then injured right knee of the petitioner with the help of iron rod. 4. Heard. GAURAV THAKUR 2025.08.28 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-44637-2025 3 5. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that a false story has been projected by the petitioner by inserting imaginary facts and that a story has been cooked up to frame the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, it is far from believable that a person, who launches an attack with an intention to kill, instead of causing any injury with the help of pistol, kept the pistol below the belt and then injured the complainant with the help of iron rod. 6. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the falsity of the claim of complainant can be gauged from the fact that FIR for the commission of offence of attempt to commit murder has been lodged, but the opinion of doctor nowhere reflects that any injury suffered by the complainant was dangerous to life. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the dispute between the parties is an off-shoot of marital discord between the children of petitioner and the complainant, and that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and therefore, entitled for the benefit of anticipatory bail. 7. Per contra, learned State Counsel has argued that in the present case, a dare-devil act has been committed by the petitioner, who launched an attack upon the complainant when the complainant was going to attend the Court proceeding. As per learned State Counsel even one day prior to the incident, a threat was extended by the petitioner to the complainant in the Court premises. Learned State Counsel has also argued that in the present case, the weapon of offence is yet to be recovered and by interrogating the GAURAV THAKUR 2025.08.28 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-44637-2025 4 petitioner the names and identity of other persons, involved in the incident, are to be ascertained. 8. In view of above, learned State Counsel has come forward with a plea that custodial interrogation of the petitioner in the present case is necessary and thus, he is not entitled for the anticipatory bail. 9. 10. The record has been perused carefully. In the present case, one of the most relevant aspect to be noted is that the contents of FIR itself show that only petitioner is the person, whose identity is known to the victim/complainant. Although there are allegations that the petitioner was accompanied with few more assailants, but they were unknown to the petitioner. In such a fact situation, if the investigating agency is deprived of its right of custodial interrogation of the petitioner and for want of custodial interrogation, the investigating agency is not able to establish identity of other assailants, who were accompanying the petitioner, it will scuttle the progress of investigation and there is a possibility that investigating agency will not be able to lay hand to other persons, who were involved in the commission of abovementioned offence. 11. Otherwise also, the gravity of the actions of petitioner can be gauged from the fact that the allegations against the petitioner are of causing grievous injury while armed with deadly weapons in the Court premises. Remedy of anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy. 12. The cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors leads to a conclusion that for proper investigation of the case, custodial GAURAV THAKUR 2025.08.28 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-44637-2025 5 interrogation of the petitioner, in the present case, is necessary, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of anticipatory bail. 13. In view of above, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE AUGUST 27, 2025 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable Yes/No Yes/No GAURAV THAKUR 2025.08.28 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document