P&H HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Accused In Fatal Village Attack, Citing Proclaimed-Offender Status And Unrecovered Pistol

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in an FIR alleging offences under Sections 103, 115(2), 109, 125, 333, 351(2), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, armed with a pistol, took part in two attacks on the complainant’s family; the second attack caused the death of Amarjit Kaur and firearm injuries to two others

The petitioner disputed his identification and the specificity of the allegations, relied on bail granted to co-accused, and offered to join the investigation

The State opposed bail, stating that the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender and that his custodial interrogation was required

The Sessions Court had dismissed his anticipatory-bail application

Section 482 of the BNSS empowers the High Court to grant anticipatory bail, but the power is extraordinary and is to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances

Under Section 190 of the BNS, the criminal liability of a member of an unlawful assembly for an offence committed in prosecution of its common object may be examined at trial; the absence of a specific allegation that the petitioner fired the fatal shot did not, at the anticipatory-bail stage, exclude such liability

The Court further stated that a person who has absconded and been declared a proclaimed offender is ordinarily not entitled to anticipatory bail, absent exceptional circumstances

The Court found that the petitioner was named in the FIR as armed with a pistol in both parts of the occurrence and was also identified by injured witness Balwinder Singh as an assailant in the second attack

Although no fatal shot or specific firearm injury was attributed to him, the Court held that his alleged presence with a firearm and potential liability as a member of the unlawful assembly were matters for trial

It rejected the parity argument because the bailed co-accused had different alleged roles and, in the case of those granted regular bail, had undergone substantial custody; the petitioner, unlike them, was also a proclaimed offender

The alleged pistol remained unrecovered, and the Court accepted the State’s position that custodial interrogation was needed to investigate its recovery and source

It dismissed the petition, finding that the serious allegations, the petitioner’s proclaimed-offender status, and the need for custodial interrogation weighed against relief

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the bail petition and were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case