Narinder Kumar Alias Narinder Singh Alias Nanna v. State of Punjab

IN Narinder

State of P

Date of d Date of U CORAM Present:

SUMEET

¶1Nagarik S for grant No.49 da Sections 1 Police Sta

¶2FIR No. 4 Hoshiarpu Narinder assembly with dead alleged to and anoth

THE HIGH COURT OF PUN CHANDIG

Kumar @ Narinder Singh @ Na

V/s Punjab

decision: 17.07.2026 Uploading : 18.07.2026 M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AA ***** T GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been file Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereina of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to ated 20.04.2026, registered fo 109, 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 351 ation Model Town, District Hosh As per the allegations (as set 49 dated 20.04.2026 got register ur, wherein it had been alleged Kumar @ Nanna along with h and attacked complainant Sand dly weapons. It has been furt o have inflicted a Khanda blow o her blow on the face of Balwind

NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH

CRM-M-34483-2026 anna

....Petitioner

....Respondent SUMEET GOEL e for the petitioner. AG Punjab. ed under Section 482 of Bharat after to be referred as 'the BNS o the petitioner in case bearing F r the offences punishable und 1(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023, hiarpur. t-out in the petition in hand) a ca red at Police Station Model Tow d that on 11.04.2026 the petition his co-accused formed an unlaw deep Kumar and Balwinder Sin ther alleged that the petitioner on the forehead of the complain der Singh, while the other accus

iya S') FIR der , at ase, wn, ner wful ngh r is ant

persons al bat. On th investigat

¶3previous that the p

20.04.202 According are exagg pressure u that there which cas been furth true and m to connec contended Goldy ha Coordinat been furth and, there the facts clean ant

lso assaulted the victims with sh hese set of allegations, the FIR i tion ensued. Learned counsel for the r has been falsely implicated into enmity between the parties. Le present FIR is nothing but a c 26, which has been registered at r regarding an earlier occurrence g to learned counsel, the allegat gerated and have been made upon the petitioner and his fam e is a considerable delay in the r sts serious doubt on the story p her contended that the complain material facts and there is no ind ct the petitioner with the alle d that co-accused Bimla Devi, ave already been granted the c te Bench of this Court and hen r deserves to be granted the co her submitted that no recovery is efore, the custodial interrogation and circumstances of the case tecedents; deep roots in societ

harp-edged weapons and a baseb in question has been registered a petitioner has iterated that o the FIR in question on account earned counsel has further itera counterblast to FIR No. 50 da the instance of the daughter of e involving the complainant par tions levelled against the petition with an ulterior motive to ex mily. It has been further contend registration of the FIR in questi put forth by the prosecution. It h ant has deliberately suppressed dependent or corroborative mater eged offence. It has been furth Surjit Kaur and Anil Kumar concession of anticipatory bail nce on the principle of parity, oncession of pre-arrest bail. It h s to be effected from the petition n of the petitioner is not required e. Furthermore, the petitioner h ty; there is no likelihood of

ball and t of ted ted rty. ner xert ded ion has rial her @ by has ner d in

and hence bars. On t bail is ent

¶4anticipato specifical counsel h against th forehead Singh. Re Kalbhush District H have been been decl reads thus

r fleeing from justice or tamper e no useful purpose would be s the strength of these submissions treated for. Per contra, learned State c ory bail to the petitioner by arg ly named in the FIR as he is has iterated that the FIR contai he petitioner, who is stated to ha of the complainant and anothe eferring to status report dated 0 an, PPS, Deputy Superintende Hoshiarpur, learned State couns n caused on the complainant an ared to be grievous in nature. T s: "That it is submitted that the foll received by the complainant Injur y No. as per MLR Name of Accused Name of Injured Person W n

¶1Petition er Narinde r Kumar @ Nanna Complaina nt Sandip Kumar Ir K a

¶2Anil Kumar Goldi Complaina nt Sandip Kumar K

ring with the prosecution eviden served by sending him behind s, a prayer for grant of anticipato counsel has opposed the grant guing that the petitioner has be the main accused. Learned St ins specific and direct allegatio ave inflicted a Khanda blow on er blow on the face of Balwind

04.07.2026, by way of affidavit ent of Police, Sub-Division Ci el has submitted that five injur d as per the MLR injury No.1 h he relevant of the said status rep lowing is the injury chart of the injur Weapo Used Seat of Injury Nature of Injury Off e mad out ron Khand On the left side of forehea d Sharp/Grievo us BNS Kirpan On the left side of back Blunt/simple BNS

nce ory of een tate ons der t of ity, ries has port ries fenc de 8(2) NS 5(2)

learned St recovered necessary of events. the conce as there tampering manner in prayed for

¶5gone throu

¶3Unknow n person Complaina nt Sandip Kumar K

¶4Anil Kumar Goldi Complaina nt Sandip Kumar K

¶5Unknwo n person Complaina nt Sandip Kumar K

¶6That in the MLR of injure one injury caused with sharp we The true copy of MLR of complai that the doctor declared injury n nature. The true copy of opinion

Raising submission in tande tate counsel has contended that d and, therefore, the custodial y for effective investigation and . It has been further contended t ssion of anticipatory bail, it may is every likelihood of the pe g with evidence. Considering th n which it was committed, the d r. I have heard the learned cou ugh the available record of the c

Kirpan On the left side above waist Blunt/simple BNS Kirpan On the left side of leg blow knee Blunt/simple BNS Kirpan On the right side of leg below knee Blunt/simple BNS ed Balwinder Singh, the doctor descri eapon and was kept on surgical opini inant is annexed as annexure R-3. Af no.1 of Balwinder Singh to be sharp n of doctor is annexed as annexure R-m with the aforesaid status repo the weapon of offence is yet to interrogation of the petitioner for unearthing the complete ch that in case the petitioner is gran y adversely affect the investigati etitioner influencing witnesses he gravity of the offence and dismissal of the petition in hand unsel for the rival parties and ha case.

5(2) NS 5(2) NS 5(2) NS bed ion. After p in -2." ort, be r is ain ted on, or d is

¶6Hon'ble S Kumar C reads as u

It would be apposite to refer Supreme Court in the case title C.K. and another, 2022(4) RCR under: "12. In a case containing suc ought not to have exercised its ju arrest, as the Investigating Of investigation to its logical con appearance before the Investiga from subjecting Respondent No.1 be fruitful to find out the prima f are of extreme serious in nature. xxx

xxx xxx

xxx "15. Be that as it may, even ass is not required for custodial inter Court ought not to have granted d

¶16We are dealing with a m (appellant herein) has come anticipatory bail granted by the cancelled. To put it in other wor Court wrongly exercised its discr the accused in a very serious crim passed by the High Court grantin be quashed and set aside. In m noticed one common argumen interrogation is required and, the There appears to be a serious m custodial interrogation is made would be a good ground to interrogation can be one of the r with other grounds while decidi bail. There may be many cases in accused may not be required, but case against the accused should be granted anticipatory bail. The

herein to a judgment passed by ed as Sumitha Pradeep vs. Ar R (Criminal) 977, relevant where ch serious allegations, the High Co urisdiction in granting protection aga Officer deserves freehand to take nclusion. It goes without saying t ating Officer who, has been preven 1 to custodial interrogation, can har facie substance in the allegations, wh

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx suming it a case where Respondent N rrogation, we are satisfied that the H discretionary relief of anticipatory bai matter wherein the original complain before this Court praying that e High Court to the accused should rds, the complainant says that the H retion while granting anticipatory bai me like POCSO and, therefore, the or ng anticipatory bail to the accused sho many anticipatory bail matters, we h t being canvassed that no custod erefore, anticipatory bail may be gran misconception of law that if no case out by the prosecution, then that al o grant anticipatory bail. Custod relevant aspects to be considered alo ing an application seeking anticipat n which the custodial interrogation of t that does not mean that the prima fa be ignored or overlooked and he sho e first and foremost thing that the co

run eof ourt inst that nted rdly hich No.1 High il. nant d be High il to rder ould ave dial ted. for one dial ong tory f the acie ould

¶7State, ind offence w and inflic allegation armed w complaina Balwinde participate persons. H distinguis accompan facie indi the offenc commissi nature bu medical e declared previous e

hearing an anticipatory bail app facie case put up against the a offence should be looked into alo Custodial interrogation can be on bail. However, even if custod necessitated, by itself, cannot be a As per the material available dubitably, serious allegations r. The allegations in the present wherein the petitioner is alleged ted multiple blows aimed at the ns, the role attributed to the pet with a Khanda and inflicted a ant namely Sandeep Kumar and r Singh. The allegations indica ed in the occurrence and acted Hence, the role attributed to th shable from that of the co-accu nied or instigated the assailants. cate the active involvement of t ce. The petitioner has been attrib on of the offence. The allegatio ut disclose a specific act of as evidence on record reflects multi grievous in nature. The plea enmity is a matter that may be e

pplication should consider is the pri accused. Thereafter, the nature of ong with the severity of the punishme ne of the grounds to decline anticipat dial interrogation is not required a ground to grant anticipatory bail." e on record as also the stand of have been levelled against case disclose a grave and heino d to have attacked the complain vital parts of his body. As per titioner is that he is alleged to a blow on the forehead of d another blow on the face of o ate that the petitioner has activ in concert with the other accus he petitioner is direct, specific a used who are alleged only to ha At this stage, the allegations pri the petitioner in the commission buted a direct and active role in ons are not general or omnibus sault with a deadly weapon. T iple injuries, one of which has be with regard to the existence examined during the course of tr

ima ent. tory or ous ant be one ely sed and ave ima n of s in The een of ial,

and, the s when the alleged a violent an cause has that the co also of n mechanic role attrib distinguis concessio claiming p accused a participati

¶8cross-case while con that while consider t accused, tampering considera and the C determine

ame cannot be made a sole groun re are specific and grave alleg assault was carried out using nd aggressive conduct of the p been shown, at this stage, from r has been falsely implicated int o-accused have been granted the o help to the petitioner as the ally. Each case is required to be buted to the petitioner prima fac shable from that of the co-acc on of anticipatory bail; thereby parity. Accordingly, the petition as the principle of parity doe ion and the gravity of allegations Furthermore, the plea of fa e is a disputed question of fact nsidering a petition for grant of e exercising jurisdiction under the nature and gravity of the ac the likelihood of fleeing from g with evidence of influen ation of evidence/material at the Court cannot go into the deta e its admissibility, which is a

nd for the grant of anticipatory b gations. The manner in which deadly weapon demonstrates petitioner. No cause nay plausi which it can be deciphered that to the present FIR. The argum e concession of anticipatory bai plea of parity cannot be claim examined on its own facts, and cie appears to be direct, active a used who have been granted y disentitling the petitioner fro ner cannot claim parity with the c s not apply when the degree s materially differ. false implication on account of which cannot be adjudicated up anticipatory bail. It is well sett Section 482 BNS, the Court m ccusation, the role attributed to m justice and the possibility cing witnesses. The scope stage of anticipatory bail is limi ailed appreciation of evidence matter to be decided during

bail ble ent l is med and om co-of f a pon led must of of ted

course of prima fac implicatio material h motive fo cannot be has come investigat Thus, it i would ne Anil Sha Court held

¶9attributed for effect

f trial. At this stage, there is n cie case is not made out agains on on account of previous enmity has been placed on record to sho or false implication. Bald asser e made the basis for grant of ant e on record, including the m tion, appear to establish a reas s not appropriate to grant antic cessarily cause impediment in e arma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 199 d as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6)

"6. We find force in the submissi qualitatively more elicitation-orient well-ensconced with a favourable or case like this, effective interrogation advantage in disinterring many usefu would have been concealed. Success suspected person knows that he is arrest bail order during the time he in such a condition would reduce t custodial interrogation is fraught subjected to third-degree methods n argument can be advanced by all a has to presume that responsible poli a responsible manner and that thos offences would not conduct themselve Considering the nature and d to the petitioner and the require ive investigation, this Court is

no material on record to hold t st the petitioner. The plea of fa y is vague and unsubstantiated. ow existence of any such enmity rtions without supporting eviden icipatory bail. The material wh medical evidence and prelimina sonable basis for the accusatio cipatory bail to the petitioner, as effective investigation. In State 97 SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supre ) ion of CBI that custodial interrogation ted than questioning a suspect who rder under Section 438 of the Code. I n of a suspected person is of tremend ul informations and also materials wh s in such interrogation would elude if well protected and insulated by a p is interrogated. Very often interrogat to a mere ritual. The argument that with the danger of the person be need not be countenanced, for, such ccused in all criminal cases. The Co ice officers would conduct themselves e entrusted with the task of disinterr es as offenders." gravity of the allegations, the r ement of the custodial interrogati of the considered opinion that

hat alse y or nce ich ary ons. s it e v. me n is o is In a dous hich f the pre-tion eing an ourt s in ring ole

milieu of

10.

(i)

(ii) of opinion

(iii)

July 17, 2 Ajay

r does not deserve the concession the case in hand. In view of the prevenient rati The instant petition is devoid Nothing said hereinabove sh n upon merits of the case/investig Pending application(s), if any

2026

n of anticipatory bail in the fact iocination, it is ordained thus: d of merits and is hereby dismiss hall be deemed to be an expressi gation. y, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE

ual sed.