Anticipatory bail is justified when the evidence does not warrant custodial interrogation, especially for a petitioner not being the main accused.

JUDGMENT :

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail.

2. In paragraph 16 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows:

"That the brief facts of the case are that the FIR no. 05 dated 29-01-2025 (Annexure P-1) has been registered on the basis of the statement of complainant Varinder Singh, to the effect that;

(i) The complainant and his father Piara Singh are owners of 68 Kanals of land, out of which the complainant has sold 30 Kanal of land to Dalvir Singh son of Tarsem Singh on 5-3-2024 and his father has sold 24 Kanal of land to one Sarabjit Kaur in the year 2016 and now they are owner of 11 Kanal of land. One motor of 12 horsepower is installed in the said land. The complainant's land and the land of Dalvir Singh are on lease with Kirpal Singh. Dalvir Singh and Kirpal Singh want to grab the land of the complainant.

(ii) The complainant further stated that on 26-01-2025 at about 10:00 am, the complainant went to the motor. On the way, at about a distance of 50 feet, Kirpal Singh @ Pala was standing on the road, who, on seeing the complainant, called someone from his phone, and thereafter, one swift car was seen coming, in which Dalvir Singh and Paramjit Singh @ Pamma (present petitioner) were sitting. On seeing them, the complainant ran towards the village side, but the above said persons caught him. Dalvir Singh was armed with 'Kirpan, Kirpal Singh @ Pala was armed with 'Gandasa', and Paramjit Singh @ Pamma (present petitioner) was armed with "Kirpan", alighted from the car. Dalvir Singh and Kirpal Singh raised lalkara to kill the complainant and teach him a lesson about taking abovementioned land and Kotha.

(iii) That subsequently, Kirpal Singh attacked with a 'Gandasa' on the back side of the complainant's neck, as a result of which he fell down on the ground. Thereafter, Dalvir Singh attacked the complainant with a 'Kirpan' on his head. Paramjit Singh (present petitioner) attacked the complainant with 'Kirpan' on his nose and left thigh. Kirpal Singh again attacked the complainant with a 'Gandasa' on various parts of his body, i.e., left hand, left thigh, and left shoulder. Then, Dalvir Singh again attacked the complainant with 'Kirpan' on his left wrist, left leg, and forehead. Thereafter, Paramjit Singh @ Pamma (present petitioner) gave a fist blow on the mouth of the complainant. All the accused were stating that they would kill the complainant. During the assault on the complainant, his turban fell down on the earth. Thereafter, the complainant raised an alarm for his rescue, then his relative Arshdeep Singh and his co-villager Sohanpreet Kaur came to the spot and raised an alarm for the rescue of the complainant. After seeing the gathering of people at the spot, all the accused, along with their respective weapons, fled away from the spot in a swift car, and they also took the turban of the complainant with them."

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR and has no role to play in the alleged occurrence. He has never been indulged in any illegal activities. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.

5. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply .

6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows:

"That the role of the petitioner Paramjit Singh @ Pamma is active and specific.