CRM-M/49399/2026 of KIRPAL SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 2 September 2026

1. Second petition under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (akin to Section 438 Cr.P.C.), seeking the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Kirpal Singh son of Piara Singh, aged 36 years, in FIR No.19 dated 27.03.2025, registered under Sections 140(3), 115, 116, 191(3), 190 and 324(4) of the BNS, 2023 (akin to Sections 365, 323, 320, 148, 149 and 427 IPC), at Police Station Harike, District Tarn Taran, Punjab, with Section 118(2) of the BNS, 2023 (akin to Section 326 IPC) having subsequently been added vide DDR No.40 dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure P- 3). The petitioner had earlier approached this Court seeking the same relief; however, the said petition was dismissed on merits vide order dated 27.05.2025.

-: 2 :-

2. The prosecution case, as unfolded in the FIR lodged on the statement of complainant Charanjit Singh, is that on 23.03.2025, at about 7:00/7:30 a.m., the complainant, accompanied by his brother Ajmer Singh, was proceeding towards the village on a motorcycle when they noticed the complainant’s son returning on foot from village Kirtowal Khurd after delivering milk. Upon reaching in front of the house of Piara Singh, Piara Singh and his family members allegedly dragged the complainant’s son inside their house. On hearing his cries for help, the complainant and his brother rushed towards the house, where the complainant’s wife, Ranjit Kaur, also arrived. They allegedly found Piara Singh and his family members assaulting the complainant’s son after tying him to a pillar.

2.1. When the complainant intervened to rescue his son, the present petitioner, Kirpal Singh, allegedly inflicted a blow with a kirpan, which struck the complainant on his right arm and elbow. Upon the complainant falling to the ground, his wife Ranjit Kaur intervened, whereupon Piara Singh allegedly inflicted a kirpan blow upon her head, while the petitioner is also alleged to have caused a kirpan injury on her head. Piara Singh and Kuljeet Kaur, wife of Kirpal Singh, allegedly restrained Ranjit Kaur, whereafter accused Gurbhej Singh allegedly attacked her with a kirpan, causing another injury to her head.

2.2. The prosecution further alleges that Babbu, son of Piara Singh, assaulted Ajmer Singh, the complainant’s brother, with a datar, causing an injury to his left leg, while Kuldeep Kaur, wife of Babbu Singh, allegedly struck him with a daang on his head, as a result whereof he fell to the

-: 3 :- ground. In addition, 6/7 unidentified persons allegedly joined the assault, threw the complainant’s son to the ground and subjected him to beatings. The assailants are further alleged to have damaged the complainant’s motorcycle and, upon the victims raising an alarm, fled from the spot along with their respective weapons. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the FIR came to be registered and investigation was set into motion, during which the injured persons were subjected to medico-legal examination.

2.3. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner initially approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, seeking the concession of anticipatory bail. The said prayer, however, came to be declined vide order dated 01.05.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present petition. It is relevant to note that the petitioner had thereafter also sought relief before this Court, but the earlier petition was dismissed on merits vide order dated 27.05.2025. The present petition, thus, constitutes a second attempt to seek the extraordinary discretionary protection of anticipatory bail in respect of the same FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case arises out of a version and cross-version stemming from the same occurrence, with both sides attributing aggression to the opposite faction and both having sustained injuries. The genesis of the occurrence and the identity of the aggressor are, therefore, disputed questions of fact which are matters for trial and cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of considering anticipatory bail.

-: 4 :-

3.1. It is further contended that the petitioner himself sustained multiple injuries, including fracture of the left radius, deep incised wounds on the left forearm and leg, injury to the radial artery and a deep incised wound on the chest, with Injury Nos.3 and 5 having been opined by the Medical Board to be grievous. Such injuries, according to learned counsel, belie the prosecution narrative of a unilateral assault.

3.2. Learned counsel further submits that the specific allegations against the petitioner are themselves subject to evidentiary scrutiny, the injury attributed to him on Charanjit Singh being on the right forearm below the elbow, while the alleged head injury to Ranjit Kaur is accompanied by similar allegations against other accused. The occurrence having taken place at or near the petitioner’s house in the backdrop of an existing road/path dispute, the defence version regarding the genesis of the confrontation also warrants consideration at trial.

3.3. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, is neither a proclaimed offender nor wanted in any other case, and undertakes to join and fully cooperate with the investigation and abide by any condition imposed by this Court. Learned counsel accordingly prays for grant of anticipatory bail and his petition be allowed.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Upon advance notice, Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, learned DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State of Punjab and opposes the prayer for pre-arrest bail. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner had already approached this Court seeking the same relief

-: 5 :- and the earlier petition was dismissed on merits vide order dated 27.05.2025. No subsequent or material change in circumstances has been demonstrated so as to warrant reconsideration of the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, had already passed a comprehensive and well- reasoned order after duly considering the factual matrix and the applicable legal principles, and no ground for taking a different view has been made out. Dismissal of the present petition is, accordingly, sought.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the paper-book, this Court finds no justification to entertain the present second petition seeking the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court seeking identical relief in respect of the same FIR, which petition was dismissed on merits vide order dated 27.05.2025. The dismissal on merits constitutes a significant circumstance governing consideration of the present prayer, and a second petition can be entertained only upon demonstration of a genuine, subsequent and material change in circumstances having a direct bearing upon the petitioner’s entitlement to pre-arrest protection.

6.1. The principal circumstance now sought to be projected as a change in circumstances is the grant of bail to a member of the opposite party in the cross-case. Such circumstance, in the considered view of this Court, does not constitute a material change in circumstances warranting a different approach towards the present petitioner. The grant of bail to an accused belonging to the opposite faction in the cross-case, by itself,

-: 6 :- neither effaces the allegations against the petitioner in the present FIR nor alters the nature, gravity or evidentiary complexion of the accusations levelled against him. More importantly, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any subsequent development which materially undermines the prosecution case against him or renders the considerations prevailing at the time of dismissal of the earlier petition otiose.

6.2. Rather, the circumstance relied upon by the petitioner operates against him. The fact that the accused from the opposite side has been granted bail in the cross-case cannot, without more, furnish a parity-based claim in favour of the petitioner, particularly when the allegations, attributed roles, injuries and evidentiary circumstances in the respective cases have to be assessed independently. Parity is not a mechanical or mathematical principle and cannot be invoked merely on the basis of the fact that both cases arise out of the same occurrence. What is required to be demonstrated is parity of circumstances and not merely parity of affiliation.

6.3. The other submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, including the existence of a version and cross-version, the injuries allegedly suffered by him, the disputed genesis of the occurrence, the nature of the individual injuries attributed to him and the alleged property/path dispute between the parties, were either available for consideration when the earlier petition was adjudicated or are matters intrinsically connected with the merits of the prosecution case. These circumstances, therefore, cannot be re-agitated in a successive petition so

-: 7 :- as to secure a fresh assessment of the same material in the absence of any intervening circumstance of demonstrable significance.

6.4. The jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail is discretionary and extraordinary in character. It cannot be permitted to become a vehicle for successive reconsideration of an issue which has already attained judicial consideration on merits, unless the subsequent petition is founded upon circumstances materially different from those obtaining at the time of the earlier adjudication. The doctrine of finality in judicial orders assumes particular significance in such matters, and permitting successive petitions on substantially identical grounds would not only undermine the sanctity of the earlier judicial determination but also encourage repetitive invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court.

6.5. In the present case, no cogent, subsequent or legally germane change in circumstances has been established. The solitary circumstance relied upon by the petitioner, namely, grant of bail to an accused from the opposite faction in the cross-case, does not advance his case; rather, in the factual setting of the present case, it fails to dislodge the reasons which weighed with this Court while declining anticipatory bail vide order dated 27.05.2025. The petitioner, consequently, has failed to demonstrate any compelling circumstance warranting departure from the earlier order.

6.6. Viewed cumulatively, the nature of the allegations, the role attributed to the petitioner, the injuries forming part of the prosecution case, the pendency of investigation and, above all, the absence of any substantive change in circumstances persuade this Court to decline the

-: 8 :- discretionary relief sought. Accordingly, without expressing anything on the merits of the case, the present second petition for grant of pre-arrest bail is hereby dismissed.

7. In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are called for in respect of such applications, the same having been rendered infructuous in consequence of the present adjudication.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 02.09.2026

JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No