Kuldeep Singh Alias Ikatr Alias Ghatar vs State Of Punjab

CRM-M-59078 of 2026 (O&M) -1-



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH


217
CRM-M-59078-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 02.11.2026


KULDEEP SINGH ALIAS IKATR ALIAS GHATAR

...Petitioner

Versus


STATE OF PUNJAB

...Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON

Present:- Mr. Arshpreet Khadial, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Gorav Kathuria, DAG., Punjab.
Mr. PKS Phoolka, Advocate
for the complainant.

*


NEERJA K. KALSON, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section
438 Cr.P.C.), seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 200 dated 04.09.2026
(Annexure P-1), registered at Police Station Sangat, District Bathinda, under
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 13:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-59078 of 2026 (O&M) -2-
Sections 109, 117(3), 115(2), 190, 191(3) and 304 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding broadly to Sections 307, 323, 149, 148 IPC).
During investigation, Sections 126(2) and 61(2) BNS (corresponding to
Sections 341 and 120-B IPC, respectively) were added vide DDR No. 11
dated 05.09.2026 and DDR No. 24 dated 12.10.2026 respectively.
2. The prosecution case, as disclosed in the reply filed on behalf
of the respondent-State, is that on 02.09.2026, at about 4:00 PM, when
complainant Gurjant Singh had gone to his fields, co-accused Balkaran
Singh and the present petitioner namely Kuldeep Singh, armed with iron
pipes affixed with iron circular plates, arrived there accompanied by four
unidentified persons, three carrying iron rods and the fourth armed with a
small sword. It is alleged that co-accused Balkaran Singh exhorted the others
to teach the complainant a lesson for objecting to their activities concerning
narcotics. The petitioner is specifically attributed a blow aimed towards the
complainant’s head, which landed on his left arm when he attempted to
protect himself. Co-accused Balkaran Singh is stated to have similarly aimed
a blow towards the complainant’s head, which struck his right knee when he
attempted to evade the assault. The other assailants also inflicted injuries
upon the complainant, whereafter co-accused Balkaran Singh is stated to
have forcibly taken Rs 6,500/- and certain documents from his possession.
The complainant was subsequently rescued by Bhola Singh and taken to the
hospital. Co-accused Baldev Singh is attributed the role of having instigated
his sons, Balkaran Singh and the present petitioner, to assault the
complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 13:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-59078 of 2026 (O&M) -3-
has been falsely implicated in the present case. The principal contention
advanced is that co-accused Baldev Singh has already been granted
anticipatory bail by the learned Court below vide order dated 28.09.2026
(Annexure P-3). It is, therefore, urged that the petitioner is entitled to similar
protection on the ground of parity.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel
appearing for the complainant, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. A
reply by way of affidavit dated 26.10.2026, filed by Harvinder Singh Sra,
PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division (Rural), District
Bathinda, on behalf of the respondent-State, is taken on record. Referring to
the said reply and the medical documents appended thereto, learned State
counsel submits that the petitioner is not merely implicated on the basis of a
general allegation of participation in an unlawful assembly, but is
specifically attributed the infliction of injuries upon the complainant with an
iron pipe fitted with iron circular plates. It is pointed out that injury Nos. 1,
2, 10 and 12 have been attributed to the petitioner, all of which have been
subsequently declared grievous in nature. The complainant sustained twelve
injuries in all, six of which have been opined to be grievous, while the
injuries, taken collectively, have been declared dangerous to life. Learned
State counsel further draws attention to the petitioner’s involvement in three
other criminal cases and submits that the weapon attributed to him is yet to
be recovered, besides the necessity of identifying the remaining assailants. It
is, thus, contended that the petitioner’s case is materially distinguishable
from that of co-accused Baldev Singh and that his custodial interrogation is
required for an effective investigation.
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 13:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-59078 of 2026 (O&M) -4-
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
paper-book, including the reply filed on behalf of the respondent-State and
the medical record accompanying it, this Court finds no sufficient ground to
extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. At the outset, the accusation against the petitioner must be
examined in the context of the specific role attributed to him. The FIR
names him as one of the primary assailants who arrived at the place of
occurrence armed with an iron pipe fitted with an iron gear. More
particularly, the prosecution attributes to him a blow directed towards the
head of the complainant, which struck his left arm when he attempted to
ward it off. The direction of the blow, the nature of the weapon allegedly
employed and the circumstances in which the assault is stated to have taken
place are relevant considerations while assessing the gravity of the
accusation. The fact that the blow did not land on the part of the body
towards which it was allegedly directed does not, by itself, render the
accusation inconsequential. Equally, the intention or knowledge necessary to
constitute an offence under Section 109 BNS must ultimately be determined
from the evidence and the surrounding circumstances; it cannot be
conclusively inferred merely from the nature of the injuries.
7. The medical material placed on record assumes particular
significance in the present case. The Medico-Legal Report bearing No.
AIIMS/BTI/MLR/2026/5610 records twelve injuries on the person of
complainant Gurjant Singh. The subsequent medical opinion dated
19.10.2026 (Annexure R-1), rendered by Dr. Ranjodh Singh, Department of
Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, AIIMS, Bathinda, upon consideration of
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 13:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-59078 of 2026 (O&M) -5-
the clinical record, radiological films and other material, records as follows:
“injuries number 1, 2, 8, 9, 10 and 12 are grievous in nature,
and injuries number 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11 are simple in
nature.”
The doctor has further opined:
“The mentioned injuries, taken collectively, are
dangerous to life. Opinion regarding disability has been
given after the examination of the patient.”
8. It is pertinent that the State’s reply specifically attributes
injury Nos. 1, 2, 10 and 12 to the present petitioner, all of which have been
classified as grievous. Although the precise attribution of each injury and the
individual responsibility of the accused are matters to be established during
trial, the prosecution version, read with the medical material presently
available, discloses a specific accusation of active participation in an assault
resulting in serious bodily injuries. This Court remains conscious that the
classification of the injuries as ‘dangerous to life’ is a collective medical
assessment rather than an independent medical determination of the
petitioner’s sole responsibility. Nevertheless, the nature of the injuries
attributed to him furnishes a substantial circumstance against the grant of
pre-arrest protection.
9. The principal submission founded upon parity with co-
accused Baldev Singh also requires consideration. The doctrine of parity
does not contemplate an automatic extension of bail merely because another
accused in the same FIR has been granted such relief; it requires parity in
circumstance, role and attribution. Whereas co-accused Baldev Singh is
assigned a role confined to remote instigation, the accusation against the
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 13:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-59078 of 2026 (O&M) -6-
petitioner entails active participation at the spot, wielding a dangerous
weapon and personally causing bodily harm. Given this marked divergence
in the respective roles, no equivalence can be drawn, and consequently the
petitioner cannot claim parity with the co-accused.
10. The legal position governing the exercise of discretion in
matters of anticipatory bail is well settled. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v.
State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court recognised the necessity of balancing personal liberty with
the legitimate requirements of investigation, while cautioning against the
formulation of inflexible rules governing the exercise of such discretion. The
Constitution Bench in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5
SCC 1 , reiterated the importance of examining the facts and circumstances
of each case, including the nature of the offence and the specific role
attributed to the applicant.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v.
Dharamraj, (2023) 17 SCC 510, has further emphasised that the grant of
anticipatory bail is an exercise of judicial discretion, and that the
considerations governing such relief cannot be reduced to an exhaustive
formula. The relevant portion of paragraph 11 of the judgment reads as
under:
“11. Yet, much like bail, the grant of anticipatory bail is to be
exercised with judicial discretion. The factors illustrated by this
Court through its pronouncements are illustrative, and not
exhaustive. Undoubtedly, the fate of each case turns on its own
facts and merits. …”
(emphasis supplied)
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 13:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-59078 of 2026 (O&M) -7-
The aforesaid principle requires an independent assessment
of the material concerning the applicant. Neither the gravity of the
accusation, considered in isolation, nor the grant of bail to another co-
accused can substitute such scrutiny. In the present case, the specific overt
act attributed to the petitioner, the nature of the injuries sustained and the
outstanding requirements of investigation constitute material considerations
in the exercise of discretion.
12. Another relevant factor requiring consideration is the
petitioner’s criminal antecedents. The State has disclosed his involvement in
three other criminal cases. In FIR No. 68 of 2014, registered under Sections
325, 323 and 34 IPC, the petitioner was released on probation vide judgment
dated 24.05.2024. Similarly, in FIR No. 229 dated 15.12.2017, registered
under Sections 325, 323 and 345 IPC, he was released on probation vide
judgment dated 05.05.2026. The third case, FIR No. 168 of 2023, registered
under Section 307 IPC, remains pending trial. While the pendency of a trial
cannot be equated with proof of guilt, nor can it displace the presumption of
innocence, such repeated involvement in offences constitute a relevant
circumstance while evaluating the petitioner’s claim for discretionary relief,
particularly when considered alongside the specific accusation presently
under investigation.
13. The requirements of investigation also cannot be overlooked.
As disclosed in the State’s reply, the weapon allegedly used by the petitioner
has not yet been recovered, while the identities of the unidentified assailants
and the recovery of other articles remain matters of investigation. The
necessity of custodial interrogation cannot be presumed merely because an
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 13:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-59078 of 2026 (O&M) -8-
investigating agency seeks it; the Court must examine whether such a
request bears a reasonable connection with the facts and the outstanding
investigative steps. In the present case, the prosecution has identified
specific aspects of the occurrence which remain to be investigated, including
the recovery of weapon attributed to the petitioner and the participation of
the unidentified persons. These circumstances lend substance to the State’s
opposition to the grant of anticipatory bail.
14. In Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana, 2023 INSC
612, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, emphasised the importance of a
meaningful assessment of the available material and the necessities of
investigation. The exercise of judicial discretion must preserve the delicate
balance between individual liberty and the legitimate social interests in a fair
and effective investigation.
15. Applying the settled parameters to the present case, this
Court finds that the petitioner’s claim for anticipatory bail cannot be
sustained merely on the strength of the relief granted to co-accused Baldev
Singh. The specific role attributed to the petitioner, the nature of injuries
sustained by the victim, the disclosed criminal antecedents and the
outstanding requirements of investigation, when considered cumulatively,
weigh decisively against the exercise of discretion in his favour. The Court
is not persuaded that the extraordinary protection of anticipatory bail is
warranted in the given facts.
16. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the
same is dismissed.
17. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 13:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-59078 of 2026 (O&M) -9-
expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and the investigating agency
as well as the trial Court shall proceed independently, in accordance with
law, uninfluenced by the observations made solely for adjudicating the
present petition.


02.11.2026 (NEERJA K. KALSON)
s.khan
JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 13:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document