In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Date of Decision:- 12.02.2026 Surkhab Singh @ Yadu @ Robin … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present:- Mr. Vishal Sharma (Vasudeva), Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

SUBHAS MEHLA , J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.181 dated 03.08.2024, registered under Sections 109(1), 118(1), 118(2), 238, 3(5) of BNS (initially registered under Sections 109(1), 118(1), 191(1), 190(1) of BNS, 2023; Section 118(2) of BNS was added later on vide DDR No.19 dated 21.08.2024; Section 238 of BNS was added vide DDR No.20 dated 27.09.20241; Sections 191(1), 190 of BNS were deleted and Section 3(5) of BNS were added vide DDR No.28 dated

11.11.2024), at Police Station Model Town, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused. It is contended that no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner, and that the injuries alleged in the case are attributed to the co-accused. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not been arrested for the last one and a half year and has been regularly attending his college and workplace. On these grounds, learned counsel prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail, submitting that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab, appeared on behalf of the respondent–State, and opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner, along with the co-accused, inflicted grievous injuries upon the complainant with sharp-edged weapons as they stopped the co-accused from teasing a girl. The main allegation against the petitioner is that he arrived at the place of occurrence armed with deadly weapons, along with two accomplices, and grievous injuries were caused to the complainant in the occurrence. Learned State counsel further refuted the contention that the petitioner’s name surfaced only after the arrest of the co- accused, asserting that he is one of the accomplices who actively participated in the commission of the offence. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the present petition, submitting that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to unearth the true facts of the case.

5. Heard.

6. Keeping in view the facts of the present case and contentions of learned counsel for the parties, particularly in view of the specific allegations against the petitioner that he alongwith co-accused brought deadly weapons, and the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and further considering that custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth the true facts of the case, this Court finds no merit in the present petition.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasised the importance of custodial interrogation in case titled as ‘CBI Vs. Anil Sharma, 1997 AIR Supreme Court 3806’ decided on 03.08.1997, by holding that many useful informations and concealed materials may be elicited from a suspect in custody, than a suspect who is well-protected by an order of anticipatory bail, in which case, interrogation may be reduced to a mere ritual.

8. Anticipatory bail is an extra-ordinary relief, to be granted sparingly, only in exceptional cases deserving of the concession. Recently, Hon’ble Apex Court in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, 2024 INSC 202 has made the following observation with regard to concession of Anticipatory Bail:-

“We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be