JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J.

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.0280 dated 30.11.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 118(2), 351(2), 3(5) of BNS 2023, at Police Station Sadar Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that the present FIR was registered at the instance of the complainant, Ranjit Singh, who alleged that on 13.11.2025, petitioner (herein), armed with a kirpan, along with other co-accused persons who were also armed with weapons, attacked him and inflicted grievous injuries. The complainant has alleged that the motive behind the occurrence was a land dispute. The complainant further stated that he had purchased land measuring 2 kanals 18 marlas from Jagroop Singh and Balwinder Singh and that, while he was cultivating the said land.. It was specifically alleged that the present petitioner inflicted a kirpan blow, which struck the little finger of the complainant’s right hand. The co-accused, Dalwinder Singh, is alleged to have given a daang blow. Thereafter, all the accused persons allegedly gave fist blows to the complainant, dragged him by his hair, extended threats while raising lalkaras, and subsequently fled away from the spot. Thereafter, the injured complainant was admitted to the hospital for medical treatment. Upon these set of allegations, the present FIR came to be registered against the accused persons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further contended that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 17 days in the lodging of the FIR. Learned counsel further argues that the dispute between the parties is essentially of a civil nature arising out of a business transaction, and that the complainant has failed to properly tally his accounts. It is also submitted that a civil suit has already been instituted by the father of the petitioner against the complainant. It is further submitted that the similarly situated co-accused, namely Dalwinder Singh, has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail and on this ground of parity as well, the petitioner is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel asserts that the in the instant case, the FIR fails to include material facts, which further raised questions about its credibility and fairness. Moreover, the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the 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. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be granted the concession of the anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel, has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, contending that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. Learned State Counsel submits that there are specific and categorical allegations against the petitioner to the effect he gave kirpan blow to the petitioner. It is further argued that the injuries sustained by the complainant have been declared to be grievous in nature. The investigation qua the FIR in question is still ongoing and recovery of alleged weapon is to be effected from the petitioner. 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. According to learned State counsel, in case the petitioner is granted the concession of pre-arrest, at this stage, it may impede the ongoing investi