IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.110 CRM-M-19216-2026 Decided on : 09.04.2026 Parminder Singh alias Pinder ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL ***

Present : Mr. Iqbal Singh Saggu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG, Punjab ***

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL , J (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0027 dated 08.03.2026, registered under Section 309(6) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Aur, District SBS Nagar.

2. Brief facts, as per the prosecution case, are that the petitioner snatched the gold earrings of the complainant and caused injuries on her head and face with an iron daat. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and he has no concern with the said incident. He further contends that no offence under Section 309(6) of BNS, 2023 is made out against the petitioner. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. Therefore, it is urged that the instant petition deserves to be allowed.

4. After registration of the FIR, investigation has been initiated and is under way. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, vide order dated 01.04.2026.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record, it is evident that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He snatched the earrings of the complainant, who is an old lady of 75 years, and caused 7-8 injuries to her with an iron daat. As per prosecution, the recovery is yet to be effected. This Court is sanguine of the fact that while considering the petition for anticipatory bail, it is required to consider the overall nature of offence and accusation against the accused, the manner of occurrence, the gravity of offence and the potential impact of granting pre-arrest protection, at this stage. Granting anticipatory bail with such allegations, at this preliminary stage, would not be justified as it may affect the course of fair investigation and undermine and seriousness of the alleged act. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation in the matter.

7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It would be apposite to refer herein judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘State Vs. Anil Sharma’, (1997) 7 SCC 187, wherein it has been held as under: "6. We find, force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information and also materials which would have been concealed. Succes