Kirpal Singh vs State Of Punjab

CRM-M-49399-2026 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
( 107 )
CRM-M-49399-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 02.09.2026
KIRPAL SINGH
… Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
... Respondent
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Pranav Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
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.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49399-2026 (O&M)
-: 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
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49399-2026 (O&M)
-: 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.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49399-2026 (O&M)
-: 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
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49399-2026 (O&M)
-: 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,
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49399-2026 (O&M)
-: 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
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49399-2026 (O&M)
-: 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
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49399-2026 (O&M)
-: 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
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 14:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document