CRM-M/39452/2026 of ARSHDEEP SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 20 July 2026

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for granting anticipatory bail in FIR No. 123 dated 08.12.2025 under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 323, 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (corresponding to Sections 323, 324, 326, 424, 148 and 149 IPC) and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act and Section 109 of BNS (i.e. Section 307 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Chohla Sahib, District Tarn Taran, Punjab.

2. It is contended that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further contended that on the night of 11.11.2025 at about 11.00 PM, the petitioner alongwith other co-accused persons armed with kirpans, knives, a pistol and sickles entered the complainant’s house and attacked his family members, wherein the complainant and his son Sewak Singh were badly injured. The story put forth by the prosecution is improbable and there is unexplained delay in registration of the FIR and the injury attributed to the petitioner is simple in nature. It is further contended that no useful purpose would be served by arresting the accused. The petitioner is ready to join investigation.

3. Learned State counsel opposes the present petition and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are specific and unequivocally disclose his active participation in the occurrence. It is contended that the petitioner, along with the other accused, formed an unlawful assembly and actively participated in the assault, resulting in grievous injuries to the complainant party. The investigation is still in progress, and his custodial interrogation is stated to be necessary for conducting a fair, effective, and comprehensive investigation. It is further submitted that the mere grant of anticipatory bail to certain co-accused does not entitle the petitioner to claim the same relief as a matter of right, as his role is distinct and is required to be assessed independently on the basis of the material collected during the course of investigation. Accordingly, learned State counsel prays that, having regard to the gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioner, and the nature of the offences involved, the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper book minutely with their able assistance.

5. Upon a prima facie consideration of the rival submissions and the material available on record, this Court finds no ground to extend the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner has been specifically attributed two datar blows on the head of the son of the complainant which were grievous in nature. At this stage, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail on the ground of parity with the co- accused cannot be accepted. The principle of parity is not of universal application and can be invoked only where the role attributed to the accused is identical. In the present case, the petitioner stands on a distinct footing, inasmuch as the grievous head injury has been specifically attributed to him.

6. In view of the nature and gravity of the allegations and the specific role assigned to the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for grant of the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.

(VIRINDER AGGARWAL)

JUDGE 20.07.2026 Amodh Sharma

Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No