Custodial interrogation is essential for effective investigation when serious offences are alleged and weapons of offence remain unrecovered. Courts must balance individual liberty against societal interests, prioritizing the integrity of the investigation in cases involving grave allegations and the potential for evidence concealment.

JUDGMENT :

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.14 dated 15.01.2026 registered under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 351(3), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Section 117(4) of the is added later on), at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana.

2. Brief facts as per the case of the prosecution are that the petitioner along with co-accused, attacked the complainant and caused serious injuries to him, due to some old enmity. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He argued that the alleged occurrence took place on 11.01.2026 but the FIR in question was registered on 15.01.2026 i.e. after an unexplained delay of 04 days, casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. He argued that the present FIR was registered by the complainant for the reason that the petitioner was earlier employed with M/s Radha Agro Factory and left job on 12.09.2024 to start his own business in the same field. The complainant being Manager of the said firm, became annoyed and falsely roped the petitioner in the present case. He argued that the petitioner was not even present on the spot at the time of commission of offence. He further argued that if the contents of the FIR are taken to be true, even then the injury attributed to the petitioner is on the non-vital part of the body of complainant i.e. on his leg. He further argued that Section 115(2) of BNS has been added by the prosecution, only to make the offence graver. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case and nothing is to be recovered from him. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

4. After registration of the FIR, investigation has been initiated and is under way. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated 25.02.2026.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report, which is taken on record and while referring to the same, he has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He argued that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR. He further argued that the petitioner along with co-accused, armed with deadly weapons, attacked the complainant and caused serious injuries to him. He submitted that the petitioner along with co-accused took turn holding the baseball bat and repeatedly struck the complainant on his legs, as a result whereof the complainant fell on the ground. He further submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for fair and proper investigation in the matter, to recover the weapon of offence, for unfolding the complete facts of the occurrence and for ascertaining the role of other co-accused in the conspiracy behind the occurrence. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant adopts the submissions made by learned State counsel and while opposing the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner, has contended that in the said occurrence, the complainant remained in the hospital for 14 days and moreover, he cannot even walk without human support. He submi