Punjab HC Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Man Accused Of Head-Aimed Iron-Pipe Blow, Rejecting Parity With Father Accused Only Of Instigation

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR alleging offences under Sections 109, 117(3), 115(2), 190, 191(3) and 304 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, with Sections 126(2) and 61(2) added during the investigation.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, armed with an iron pipe fitted with iron plates, struck at the complainant’s head, hitting his left arm when the complainant tried to ward off the blow.

The State attributed four injuries to the petitioner; those injuries were classified as grievous, while the complainant’s injuries collectively were assessed as dangerous to life.

The petitioner relied on parity with a co-accused who had been granted anticipatory bail.

The State opposed relief, citing the petitioner’s specific role, criminal antecedents, the unrecovered weapon and outstanding investigative steps.

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the Court to grant anticipatory bail.

Under Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, the discretion must be exercised on the facts and circumstances of the individual case, including the nature of the offence and the applicant’s role; no inflexible formula governs its exercise.

State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, (2023) 17 SCC 510, likewise holds that the relevant considerations are illustrative, not exhaustive, and each case turns on its own facts.

Parity in bail requires comparison of the accused persons’ roles and circumstances; it does not follow automatically from relief granted to a co-accused.

The Court must also assess the asserted investigative need, rather than presume that custodial interrogation is necessary merely because the investigating agency seeks it.

Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana, 2023 INSC 612, was cited for the need to assess the available material and investigative necessities while balancing individual liberty and effective investigation.

The Court found that the petitioner was alleged to have actively participated in the assault and to have wielded a dangerous weapon, with four grievous injuries attributed to him.

Although the medical opinion that the injuries were collectively dangerous to life did not determine the petitioner’s individual responsibility, the injuries attributed to him were a substantial factor against pre-arrest protection.

The petitioner’s role was materially different from that of the co-accused, whose alleged role was limited to instigation, so parity was not established.

The Court also considered the petitioner’s disclosed antecedents, while noting that pending proceedings did not amount to proof of guilt, and accepted that recovery of the alleged weapon and investigation into the unidentified assailants remained outstanding.

Considered cumulatively, these circumstances weighed against granting anticipatory bail.

It clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the bail petition and would not affect the investigation or trial.