IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 08.01.2026 Kulwinder Singh and others ....Petitioners V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Impinder Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 in DDR No.015 dated 13.11.2024 arising out of FIR No.193 dated 12.11.2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 at Police Station Lambi, District Shri Muktsar Sahib.

2. The gravamen of the FIR, as emerge from the record, are that the FIR in question was registered on the statement of petitioner No.1 namely Kulwinder Singh, alleging that on 01.11.2024, the accused Gurmeet Singh, alongwith his wife and son, inflicted injuries upon the petitioners as they objected to said Gurmeet Singh not to burst crackers and throwing them towards their house. Subsequently, the said Gurmeet Singh lodged the instant DDR ibid alleging that on the same date, the present petitioners had inflicted injuries upon him and his wife.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has iterated that the DDR lodged by Gurmeet Singh is a counterblast to the FIR registered at the instance of Kulwinder Singh (petitioner No.1 herein) and the petitioners are innocent. Learned counsel has further iterated that there is unexplained delay of 12 days in lodging the DDR which casts serious doubts on the veracity of the allegations leveled therein. According to learned counsel, the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the DDR and rather they themselves are victims of the injuries inflicted by Gurmeet Singh and his family members which facts stand substantiated from the FIR registered earlier in point of time. Learned counsel has emphasized that the implication of the petitioners is the result of connivance between the complainant and the local police under political pressure. Furthermore, it has been contended that the co-accused namely Virpal Kaur, wife of Gurmeet Singh, has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail and hence the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief on the ground of parity. Moreover, the complainant has lodged the impugned FIR on the basis of a false and fabricated story while concealing the true and material facts. It has been further argued that there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioners as the entire case is based on documentary evidence and the statements are already on record. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioners absconding from the process of justice or tampering with the prosecution evidence in case they are enlarged on pre- arrest bail. On strength of these submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel (on the strength of advance notice) has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners by arguing that the allegations leveled in the DDR disclose active participation of the petitioners in causing injuries. According to learned State counsel, the allegations in the DDR are grave in nature and such direct and specific allegations cannot be brushed aside at this stage. Learned State counsel has submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required to ascertain the role of each accused, recover the weapons and verify the sequence of events. Furthermore, in case the petitioners are granted the concession of pre-arrest bail, at this stage, it may impede the ongoing investigation and obstruct the recovery. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the instant petition.

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 case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably, serious allegations have