CRM-M/44073/2026 of DINESH KUMAR @ SUNNY SONI Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 3 September 2026

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-44073

IN THE HI IN THE HI IN THE HI IN THE HI

Dinesh Kuma State of Punja

Date of Decis Date of Decis Date of Decis Date of Decis Date of Uploa Date of Uploa Date of Uploa Date of Uploa

CORAM:

CORAM:

CORAM:

CORAM:

Present: Present: Present: Present:-

SUMEET GO SUMEET GO SUMEET GO SUMEET GO

Nagarik Surak P.C.) for gran dated 16.04.2 115(2), 351(2 later on), at Po

2.

3. would reveal concocted, im 3-2026

IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-44073

44073-2 ar @ Sunny Soni versus ab ion: ion: ion: ion: September 03 September 03 September 03 September 03, , , , 2026

ading: ading: ading: ading: September 03 September 03 September 03 September 03, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEE Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Senior Advocate Mr. Himmat Singh Deol, Advocate Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Pu Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate ***** ***** ***** *****

OEL OEL OEL OEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed un ksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BN nt of anticipatory bail to the petit 2026, registered for the offences 2), 191(3), 190 of the BNS, 2023 ( olice Station Ramdas, Amritsar (Ru The FIR in question pertains to the Learned senior counsel has submi l that the allegations leveled ag mprobable and devoid of any meri

HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH

….Petitioner ….Respondent ET GOEL ET GOEL ET GOEL ET GOEL with e for the petitioner. unjab. for the complainant. nder Section 482 of the Bharatiya NSS’) (erstwhile Section 438 Cr. tioner, in case bearing FIR No.67 punishable under Sections 103, (Section 117(2) of the BNS added ural). e murder of one Dalbir Singh. itted that a bare perusal of the FIR gainst the petitioner are wholly ts. Learned senior counsel for the

r t a .

, d R y e MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.03 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-44073

44073-2026

petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question on account of party fraction. It has been contended that initially the petitioner was not nominated as an accused, however, upon pressure being put by the complainant and his brother – they both being advocates – the police nominated the petitioner as an accused, after 05 days of alleged occurrence. It has been further argued that as per prosecution case, the petitioner has been attributed the role of raising lalkara. Learned senior counsel has further argued that, in fact, the deceased was suffering from high blood pressure and was under treatment for his ailment from a private hospital.

3.1. Learned senior counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned senior counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation. It has been urged that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind bars. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, grant of the instant petition is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has filed short reply by way of an affidavit dated 25.08.2026, which is already on record. The role of the petitioner, as per said short reply, reads thus: “Role of the petitioner Role of the petitioner Role of the petitioner Role of the petitioner

10. That as per the version of the complainant Sukhmanpreet Singh, the petitioner being a member of unlawful assembly in furtherance of its common object had attacked upon his father Dalbir Singh, who was a BP patient and during the scuffle, the co-accused Pargat Singh and Jaspal Singh punched Dalbir Singh and the petitioner raised a lalkara but no injury is attributed to the petitioner.

Evidence against the petitioner Evidence against the petitioner Evidence against the petitioner Evidence against the petitioner

11. That the evidence against the petitioner is based on oral statement of the complainant Sukhmanpreet Singh corroborated with post-mortem report of Dalbir Singh.”

4.1. Raising submissions in tandem with the aforesaid short reply, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.03 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-44073

44073-2026

arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. It has been further argued that investigation, in the present case, is still under way and the petitioner is yet to be arrested. Given the nature of allegations, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable. It has been contended that, in case, the petitioner is accorded the concession of anticipatory bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice as also influence/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses. Thus, the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

4.2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant, while raising submissions in tandem with their reply dated 25.08.2026, which is already on record, has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. It has been iterated that the petitioner being a politically influential person has been evading his appearance before the Court below even after proclamation having been issued against him and also manipulating/ tampering with the judicial record. Learned counsel has iterated that given the conduct of the petitioner and serious allegations having been leveled against him, the petitioner ought not be granted the concession of anticipatory bail. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition in hand is entreated for.

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 prosecution case, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. A perusal of the prosecution case, as well as the material available on record, prima facie reveals that the petitioner, along with the other co- accused, formed an unlawful assembly and, upon the petitioner raising a lalkara, the co-accused inflicted injuries upon Dalbir Singh, which ultimately resulted in MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.03 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-44073

44073-2026

his death. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner was very much present at the place of occurrence and is alleged to have actively participated in the commission of the offence by raising the aforesaid lalkara. The nature of allegations leveled against the petitioner does not persuade this Court to extend the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.1. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR.

7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering 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 wider impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that a prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and the preliminary investigation appear to establish reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. A profitable reference in this regard is being made to the dicta passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as State State State State v. v. v. v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039, the Supreme Court held as under, relevant whereof reads 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 informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.03 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-44073

44073-2026

knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.”

8. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that a prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record, the preliminary investigation and the nature of allegations, appear to establish a reasonable basis for his accusation. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed dismissed dismissed dismissed.

9. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

(SUMEET SUMEET SUMEET SUMEET GOEL GOEL GOEL GOEL)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE September 03 September 03 September 03 September 03, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 mahavir

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.03 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment