IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 14.10.2025 Avtar Singh @ Dhattu ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Amitoj Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Brar, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

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.0161 dated 14.07.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 191(3) of BNS 2023 (Section 118(2) of BNS 2023 added later on) at Police Station City Moga, District Moga.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that the FIR was registered by the investigating officer, upon the statement of the complainant Kashmir Singh, who stated that on 11.07.2025 at around 8:30 AM, while he was on his way to drop his nephew to school, the petitioner (herein) alongwith his co-accused Nikka Singh intercepted him. Then accused Nikka Singh raise lalkara to teach lesson to the complainant. The complainant has further stated that petitioner was armed with a gandasa and inflicted a blow with the same, which struck the complainant on his left hand. Thereafter, both the accused persons fled from the spot. The MLR report indicates that the complainant sustained a grievous injury caused by a sharp-edged weapon. On these set of allegations, instant FIR under Sections 118(1), 191(3) of BNS 2023 (Section 118(2) of BNS 2023 added later on) was registered against the petitioner and his co-accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accused is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence. Learned counsel has submitted that the complainant belongs to the Jatt Sikh community, whereas the petitioner belongs to a weaker section of society. It is further submitted that before the alleged occurrence the petitioner and his co-accused have submitted complaints before the SHO, Police Station City Moga, against Sukhdeep Singh @ Babbu, the brother of the complainant, but no action was taken by the police on their complaints. It is further submitted that on 21.06.2025, the petitioner was attacked by said Sukhdeep Singh @ Babbu, resulting in injuries to him. Despite this, no FIR has been registered against Sukhdeep Singh till date due to pressure exerted by the local Panchayat and political influence. Learned counsel has further relied upon the order dated 29.09.2025 passed in CRM-M-42197-2025 whereby concession of anticipatory bail was extended to the co-accused of the petitioner namely Mehar Singh @ Nikka. Learned counsel also submits that there is nothing to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner and, thus, he is not required for any custodial interrogation. 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, the learned State Counsel opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence is of a serious nature. Learned State counsel has argued that the complainant’s statement clearly establishes the presence of the accused at the scene and his involvement in the alleged offence. The injuries sustained by the complainan