Anticipatory bail should only be granted in exceptional circumstances, considering the seriousness of allegations and the necessity of custodial interrogation for thorough investigation.

JUDGMENT :

Manisha Batra, J.

CRM-48740 of 2024

The application is allowed as prayed for and pendrive along with Certificate under Section 63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (earlier Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act), is taken on record.

Main Case

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”) seeking anticipatory bail in the FIR mentioned below:

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant-Dalbir Singh alleging therein that he had performed marriage with Manjit Kaur on 05.07.2024. Manjit Kaur had left her matrimonial home on 16.07.2024. On 28.09.2024, he received a message through his friend that Manjit Kaur wanted to meet him at Baba Chicken, Mullanpur. On the same day, on receipt of this information, the complainant went to meet her at the shop of Baba Chicken Mullanpur wherein, she started hurling abuses to him. Then she called her brothers Parminder Singh and the present petitioner i.e. Narinder Singh. They along with unknown persons had reached there and opened an attack upon him. On exhortation made by Manjit Kaur, several injuries were caused by them with weapons which they were carrying in their hands and thereafter, Manjit Kaur along with the assailants had left the spot after extending threats to kill him. The motive behind the occurrence as attributed by the complainant was that he had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights against Manjit Kaur and she was pressurizing him to withdraw the same. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of pre arrest bail which had been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide order dated 12.11.2024.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Infact on the fateful day, it was the complainant who had followed his sister Manjit Kaur and had physically assaulted her when she along with her daughters was present in a restaurant. Beatings to the complainant had been extended by the public persons who had gathered at the spot and not by the petitioner or co-accused. Neither the petitioner nor his brother Parminder Singh was present at the place of occurrence. Infact at the relevant time, he was present at a furniture shop named as J.S. Rai Furniture House at Mohali. This fact stands verified from the CCTV footage of the above said furniture shop which has been converted into a pendrive and has been annexed with this petition. No specific injury has been attributed to him. His custodial interrogation is not required. Neither any recovery is to be effected from him. He is ready to join the investigation. The co-accused Manjit Kaur has been extended benefit of interim bail. His case is at parity. Therefore, it is urged that he deserves to be extended benefit of pre arrest bail.

4. Status report has already been filed by the respondent-State. Learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab assisted by learned counsel for respondent No. 2-complainant has argued that there are specific and serious allegations against the petitioner. The plea of alibi as taken by the petitioner at this stage cannot be considered and the same can be raised only at the stage of trial. The complainant had sustained serious multiple injuries in the form of comminuted fractures both proximal end of right Tibia and Fibula and comminuted fracutres of Distal end of Left Tibia and Fibula of right shoulder. He had sustained injuries on his back also which could be dangerous to life. He was gi