IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

202 CRM-M-2843-2025(O&M)

Date of Decision: 08.09.2025 Avtar Singh @ Tinka ...Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present:- Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Vikram Anand, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)

1. Apprehending arrest the petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.109 dated 10.08.2024, under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 74 and 324(4) and 3(5) of BNS, registered at Police Station, Sadar Kapurthala District Kapurthala.

2. This Court on 24.03.2025, stayed the arrest of the petitioner and thereafter vide order dated 18.08.2025, petitioner was directed to join the investigation and following order was passed by this Court:- “Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No. 109 dated 10.8.2024, under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 74, 324(4) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Sadar, Kapurthala District Kapurthala.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by giving the property dispute between the parties a criminal colour. It is further submitted that there is an unexplained delay of six days in lodging the present FIR. In fact, co-accused Tarwinder Singh, against whom similar allegations were levelled, was declared as innocent during investigation. Further, the alleged injury attributed to the petitioner is on the non-vital part of the body of the complainant and is a self suffered injury. In this regard, he has placed reliance on para 9 of the status report filed by way of affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division, Kapurthala, para whereof is reproduced hereinafter.

“9. That medical board was constituted to give opinion on injury No. 2 and on 30.9.2024 letter was sent to SHO P.S. Sadar with respect to opinion of medical board and it was opined that “As the injury is an easily accessible and non-vital part of body, possibility of friendly hand cannot be ruled out.’. Copy of MLR and copy of medical opinion are annexed herewith as Annexure R-1 (Collectively).”

Per contra learned State counsel as well as the learned counsel for the complainant oppose the present petition. They submit that since serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.

One of the main pillars of jurisprudence on which the criminal justice system is based, is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. If seen in that context, the provision of anticipatory bail, in its essence, can be understood as a safeguard to prevent the curtailment of liberty of an individual, a cherished constitutional guarantee, in circumstances where arrest may be unwarranted, arbitrary, or mala fide. This discretionary power, trite to say, must be exercised judiciously, based on considerations, which include but are not limited to, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the antecedents of the accused, the possibility of the fleeing from justice, and the likelihood of the evidence being tampered with and witnesses being influenced.

Reverting to the case in hand, pertinently, there is a substantial delay in the registration of the instant FIR. Further, the observation that the possibility of a ‘friendly hand’ cannot be ruled out, is another relevant consideration before this Court. All the contentions made herein are disputed questions of facts, which shall be determined during the course of trial.

In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to join investigation before the Investigating Agency/Officer. He shall abide by the following conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) BNSS, 2023;-

(1) That the petitioner shall make himself available for interrog