209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Gurwinder Singh ….Petitioner versus State of Punjab ….Respondent Date of decision: March 18, 2026 Date of Uploading: March 18, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Karan Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner (presence marked through video-conferencing).

Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in cross case bearing G.D. No.021 dated 01.12.2025, registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Chattiwind, District Amritsar, in case FIR No.0185 dated 24.11.2025, under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 25/ 27/ 54/ 59 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Chattiwind, District Amritsar.

2. The gravamen of allegations against the petitioner is that in the cross-case in question, it has been alleged by the complainant, namely, Rupinder Kaur that the petitioner having armed with datar, hit on the eye brow of left eye of Kawaljeet Singh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further iterated that it is a case of version and cross-version. Learned counsel has submitted that, in fact, the petitioner and his father had received multiple grievous injuries.

3.1. Learned counsel asserts that the police have not conducted a fair and impartial investigation and the inquiry conducted so far is not only incomplete, but also tainted with bias. Learned counsel has asserted that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. 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. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that there are specific and direct allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner was specifically named in the cross-case. Given the severity of the offence, there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioner may abscond or tamper with the evidence, if he is enlarged on bail. 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. On these submissions, dismissal of the present petition is entreated for.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.

6. As per the prosecution case, grave and serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. As per the version put forth by the prosecution and upon perusal of the impugned order, it is borne out that the petitioner, armed with a datar (a sharp-edged weapon), inflicted a blow on the eyebrow of the left eye of the victim, namely, Kawaljeet Singh. The nature of the weapon used and the targeted part of the body unequivocally demonstrate the petitioner’s intention to cause grievous injury. Prima facie, the assault was not a spontaneous or trivial act but a deliberate and violent attack with a dangerous weapon on a vital and sensitive part of the body. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to ascertain the full sequence of events, the motive behind the attack, and to recover the weapon used in the commission of the offence.

7. The petitioner has been specifically named in the cross-version, and the nature of the injury attributed to him reflects severity