Bhajan Singh vs State Of Punjab

CRM-M-57112-2026 -1-
(204+239)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-57112-2026
Date of decision :02.11.2026
BHAJAN SINGH
. .. Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent
CRM-M-60170-2026
KASHMIR SINGH
. .. Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-57112-2026.
Mr. A.S. Saini, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-60170-2026.
Mr. Yatin Bunger, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Sukhmeet Singh, Advocate
for the complainant.

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing No.CRM-
M-57112-2026 titled as Bhajan Singh V ersus State of Punjab and CRM-
M-60170-2026 titled as Kashmir Singh Versus State of Punjab as the
same are arising out of the same FIR. However, for the sake of
convenience the facts have been taken from CRM-M-57112-2026.
2. The prayer in the present petitions under Section 482 BNSS,
2023 is for the grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.0119 dated
JITESH LAL
2026.11.03 12:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-57112-2026 -2-
12.06.2026 registered under Sections 115(2), 331(6), 3(5) of BNS, 2023
(Sections 323, 458, 34 IPC) at Police Station Sadiq, District Faridkot.
3. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of
Jagjit Singh S/o Nanak Singh and the same reads as under:-
“Statement of Jagjit Singh, son of Nanak Singh, son of
Madho Singh, resident of Village Sadik, aged about 33
years, Mobile No. 73408-94179, stated as under: "I am a
resident of the aforesaid address and earn my livelihood by
doing labour work. I am married and have two children,
both sons. On the night of 05.06.2026, at about 11:35 PM, I
was sleeping along with my family in the courtyard of my
house. Since there is no wall or door around my house, the
courtyard is open. A vehicle came and stopped outside my
house. The persons travelling in the said vehicle, namely
Angrej Singh son of Bhajan Singh, armed with a kirpan,
Bhajan Singh son of Hari Singh, armed with an iron rod and
Kashmir Singh, armed with an iron rod, all residents of
Village Maan Singh Wala, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, who
are relatives of my brother, entered my house. There upon,
Angrej Singh raised a lalkara and called upon me to get up.
In the meantime, Angrej Singh inflicted a blow with his
kirpan upon me, which hit my left leg. Thereafter, Bhajan
Singh inflicted a blow with his iron rod upon me, which hit
my left leg. Thereafter, Kashmir Singh also inflicted a blow
with his iron rod upon me, which hit the same leg. As a
result, I fell down on the ground. Thereafter, all the three
accused persons inflicted several blows upon me while I was
lying on the ground, with their respective weapons, as a
result of which I suffered several blunt and grievous-looking
injuries on my body. Thereafter, I raised an alarm shouting
'save me, save me', and my family members also raised an
JITESH LAL
2026.11.03 12:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-57112-2026 -3-
alarm shouting 'save, save'. When they saw the persons from
the neighbourhood gathering at the spot, they fled from the
spot and took away their vehicle with them. The motive
behind the occurrence is that the engagement ceremony of
Nachhattar Singh, son of my paternal aunt Ram Kaur, was
being held. At that time, an altercation took place between
us and the aforesaid persons. All these persons are the
brothers-in-law and relatives of my brother Krishan Singh.
On account of the grudge arising from the incident which
took place at the engagement ceremony, they came to my
house and caused injuries to me. I am the complainant and
seek legal action. I have got my statement recorded before
you. The same has been heard and is correct." Sd/- Jagjit
Singh. ”
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. In fact, the
petitioners have been attributed the same injuries on the person of
injured Jagjit Singh. His leg actually stood fractured in a prior incident.
As the petitioners are ready and willing to join investigation, they are
entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.
eplies dated 02.11.2026 by way of affidavits of Tarlochan Singh,
5. R
PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Div. Faridkot, District Faridkot
have been filed in CRM-M-57112-2026 & CRM-M-60170-2026 on behalf
of the State by the learned counsel for the State. The same are taken on
record.
While referring to the said replies, the State counsel and counsel for
the complainant contend that the injuries attributed to the petitioners are
grievous in nature. Therefore, having regard to the allegations levelled,
JITESH LAL
2026.11.03 12:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-57112-2026 -4-
they are not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. Hence, the
present petitions are liable to be dismissed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumitha
Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022 Live Law (SC) 870 held
that merely because custodial interrogation was not required by itself
could not be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the
foremost thing the Court hearing the anticipatory bail application is to
consider is the prima facie case against the accused. The relevant extract
of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel
“
appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has
already been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part
that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent
No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further
investigation.
Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where
Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation,
we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have
granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
We are dealing with a matter wherein the original
complainant (appellant herein) has come before this
Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High
Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other
words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly
exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to
the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and,
therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting
anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set
JITESH LAL
2026.11.03 12:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-57112-2026 -5-
aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed
one common argument being canvassed that no custodial
interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail
may be granted. There appears to be a serious
misconception of law that if no case for custodial
interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that
alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail.
Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects
to be considered along with other grounds while deciding
an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be
many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the
accused may not be required, but that does not mean that
the prima facie case against the accused should be
ignored or overlooked and he should be granted
anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the
court hearing an anticipatory bail application should
consider is the prima facie case put up against the
accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be
looked into along with the severity of the punishment.
Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to
decline custodial interrogation. However, even if
custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by
itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail .
8. The injuries suffered by Jagjit Singh are as under:-
Sr No Injury Details Injury
Number
1 Injury No.1, LACERATED WOUND MEASURING 1.5
CM X 0.7 CM PRESENT ON FRONT OF LEFT LEG
10.2 CM BELOW LEFT KNEE JOINT. TISSUE
BRIDGING IS PRESENT, MARGINS ARE
IREEGULAR. FRESH BLEEDING IS PRESENT.
1
JITESH LAL
2026.11.03 12:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-57112-2026 -6-
2 Injury No.2, LACERATED WOUND MEASURING 3.2
CM X 0.2 CM PRESENT ON LEFT SIDE BACK OF
HEAD, 14.2 CM FROM TOP OF LEFT EAR, 5.2 CM
ABOVE OCCIPITAL PROTUBERANCE. TISSUE
BRIDGING IS PRESENT, MARGINS ARE
IREEGULAR. FRESH BLEEDING IS PRESENT.
2
3 Injury No.3, LACERTAED WOUND MEASURING 2.1
CM X 1.2 CM PRESENT ON LATERAL ASPECT OF
RIGHT ARM, 13.2 CM BELOW TIP OF RIGHT
SHOULDER JOINT. TISSUE BRIDGING IS PRESENT,
MARGINS ARE IREEGULAR. FRESH BLEEDING IS
PRESENT.
3
4 Injury No.4, LACERTAED WOUND MEASURING 3.1
CM X 0.4 CM PRESENT ON BACK OF RIGHT ARM,
7.1 CM ABOVE RIGHT ELBOW JOINT. TISSUE
BRIDGING IS PRESENT, MARGINS ARE
IREEGULAR. FRESH BLEEDING IS PRESENT.
4
5 Injury No.5, DIFFUSED SWELLING ASSOCIATED
WITH PAIN PRESENT ON BACK OF LEFT
FOREARM. ON EXAMINATION TENDERNESS IS
PRESENT
5
6 Injury No.6, COMPLAINT OF PAIN OVER RIGHT
HAND, NO MARK OF EXTERNAL INJURY IS
VISIBLE AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION.
6
7 Injury No.7, COMPLAINT OF PAIN OVER LEFT
THIGH, NO MARK OF EXTERNAL INJURY IS
VISIBLE AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION.
7
8 Injury No.8, REDDISH BRUISE MEASURING 9.2 CM X
4.1 CM PRESENT ON LATERAL ASPECT RIGHT
THIGH, 9.2 CM BELOW ANTERIO SUPERIOR ILIAC
SPINE ASSOCIATED WITH SWELLING AND
TENDERNESS.
8
9. As per the X-ray report, injury No.1 and 5 are grievous in
nature. The said injuries have been attributed to the present petitioners.
Prima facie, the offence stands established. The recovery of the weapons
is to be effected from the petitioners and the investigation is to be taken
to its logical conclusion, for which their custodial interrogation is
necessary.
10. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petitions
and the same stand dismissed.
JITESH LAL
2026.11.03 12:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-57112-2026 -7-
11. However, the observations made hereinabove are only for
the purposes of deciding these bail petitions and the Trial Court is free to
adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of the evidence led before it
uninfluenced by any such observations made herein.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
JUDGE
02.11.2026
JITESH
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
JITESH LAL
2026.11.03 12:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document