In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Date of Decision:- 17.02.2026 Vijay @ Jatinder Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present:- Mr. Shivam Joshi, 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 bearing FIR No.159 dated 04.08.2023, registered under Sections 323, 379 and 34 of IPC (offences under Sections 379-B(ii)

and 506 added later on), at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar Rural.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner neither inflicted any injury upon the complainant nor committed the alleged offence of snatching. It is further submitted that the injuries allegedly sustained are simple in nature. Petitioner has clean and clear antecedents, and he is ready and willing to join the investigation.

Accordingly, learned counsel prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail.

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 petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR, and it is alleged that petitioner along with the co-accused, snatched ₹

5,000/- and a mobile phone from the complainant and also assaulted the complainant, total eight injuries were caused to the complainant, out of which two injuries are on the vital parts i.e. the skull and scapular region. He accordingly prayed for dismissal of the present petition, contending that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to ascertain the true facts of the case, as investigation is at an initial stage.

5. Heard.

6. Keeping in view the facts of the present case and contentions of learned counsel for the parties, particularly the allegation that the petitioner, along with the co-accused, snatched a mobile phone and cash amounting to ₹

50,000 from the complainant and assaulted him, 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 the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence.”

9. In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the present petition stands dismissed.

10. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be an expression o