IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 20.04.2026 Sukhbir Singh @ Harchand Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. H.S. Batth, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Ramta Chowdhary, 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.53 dated 29.06.2024 registered under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149, 427 and 452 of IPC (Section 326 of IPC added later on), at Police Station Valtoha, District Tarn Taran.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner along with other co-accused, armed with deadly weapons, attacked the complainant and his family members and caused injuries to them, due to some land dispute.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and initially, the FIR was registered against unknown person. He argued that the alleged occurrence took place on 28.06.2024 but the FIR in question was registered on 29.06.2024 i.e. after a delay of 01 day, casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. He further argued that if the contents of the FIR are taken to be true, even then the injury attributed to the present petitioner is on the non-vital part of the body of the complainant. He further argued that Section 326 of IPC has been added later on, only to make the offence graver. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

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 the Court of learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, vide order dated 23.05.2025.

5. Notice of motion.

6. Learned State counsel, who has appeared on advance notice of the petition, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. She argued that the petitioner along with other co-accused had formed an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, attacked the complainant and his family members and caused serious injuries to them. She further argued that petitioner gave a datar blow on the person of the complainant, which hit on his right arm and the same has been declared grievous in nature and thus, offence under Section 326 of IPC has been specifically attributed to the present petitioner. She further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for fair and proper investigation in the matter, to recover the weapon of offence and identification and arrest of co-accused. Hence, she prays for dismissal of the petition.

7. Heard.

8. In the present case, the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and the allegations against him are serious in nature. He is alleged to have inflicted grievous injuries upon the complainant and offence under Section 326 IPC has been specifically attributed to him. The weapon of offence is yet to be recovered. 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 the seriousness of the alleged act. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effecti