P&H HC Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Two Accused In Village Clash, Citing Injured Constable And Need For Custodial Questioning

The petitioners sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in FIR No. 54 dated 7 June 2025, registered at Police Station Bhindi Saida, District Amritsar, for offences under Sections 109, 326(g), 324(4), 324(5), 221, 132, 333, 191(3), 190, 351(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that two groups, comprising numerous named and unidentified persons, clashed while armed, pelted stones, set houses on fire, trespassed into premises and damaged property. It further alleged that the groups attacked the police with stones when officers intervened, injuring a constable and obstructing the officers’ duties.

The petitioners argued that the allegations were omnibus, that no specific act or injury was attributed to them, and that they were willing to join the investigation.

The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations, pending recoveries and the need for custodial interrogation.

The Sessions Court had previously rejected their anticipatory-bail applications.

Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 provides for anticipatory bail. In considering such relief, the Court stated that it must balance individual rights against societal interests and consider, among other matters, the nature and seriousness of the offence, the role attributed to the accused and the need for a fair and effective investigation.

Relying on State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, the Court noted that custodial interrogation may be more effective than questioning a suspect protected by pre-arrest bail, particularly where it may assist in uncovering concealed information or material.

The Court considered the alleged violent clash, the reported use of weapons, the burning and damaging of houses, and the alleged attack on the police, which resulted in injury to a constable.

It found, prima facie, that the petitioners had actively participated in the occurrence and that the allegations and preliminary investigation provided a reasonable basis for accusation.

The Court also accepted the State’s position that recoveries remained outstanding and custodial interrogation was required to establish the sequence and manner of the events.

It held that the petitioners’ claims of false implication and lack of specific overt acts involved disputed questions of fact unsuitable for determination at the anticipatory-bail stage.

It clarified that its observations would not be treated as an opinion on the merits of the case or investigation, and disposed of any pending applications.