Kuldeep Singh And ORS v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.05.2026 KULDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS ...PETITIONERS V/S STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA

Present:

Mr. Vikram Bhaskar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab.

**** SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (ORAL) 1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short - 'the BNSS') for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case bearing FIR No.77 dated 02.04.2026 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 333, 324(4), 115(2), 118(1), 298, 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short - 'the BNS') and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Beas, District Amritsar.

2.

The petitioners along with co-accused armed with deadly weapon trespassed the complainant's house and assaulted him as well as his family members. Subsequently, the petitioners also attacked the complainant while he was getting treatment in hospital. Specific allegations against the petitioners are that petitioner-Kuldeep Singh armed with a pistol came and hit the complainant on his forehead with the butt of the pistol and later allegedly

-2entered the hospital armed with a pole axe and gave blows on the legs and waist of the complainant/injured with an intention to kill him. PetitionerParmjit Singh @ Pamma armed with a screwdriver came and gave blows on the head of the complainant/injured and right hand causing bleeding injuries and later in the hospital allegedly attacked the complainant/injured with a datar causing injuries on his arms and head. He is also accused of pulling the beard of Sukhdev Singh. Petitioner-Harbans Singh is alleged to have entered the hospital armed with a datar and gave blows on the arms and legs of complainant/injured during the second attack inside the hospital ward. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioners on the following grounds: i.

The petitioners have been falsely involved in the present case;

ii.

The present matter is a version and cross-version and the petitioners have also suffered injuries in the said scuffle; iii.

Custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required as nothing is to be recovered from them;

iv.

Petitioners are ready to join the investigation as and when required and to cooperate with the investigating agency; and v.

Co-accused, namely, Anokh Singh has already been granted the relief of anticipatory bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide order dated 27.04.2026 (Annexure P-7).

-34.

Upon advance notice, learned State counsel appeared on behalf of respondent-State and opposed the prayer made by the petitioners on the following aspects:

i. Petitioners have actively participated in the commission of offence and brutally attacked the complainant with the butt of pistol, screwdriver and datar at two instances i.e. at the house of the complainant and subsequently in the hospital; ii. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are habitual offenders and are also involved in other cases;

iii. Total 17 injuries have been caused to the complainant, out of which, three have been declared as grievous in nature; iv. The whole occurrence was captured in the CCTV cameras; and v. Petitioners are required for custodial interrogation for proper investigation of the case and for recovery of weapons.

5.

Heard.

6.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and contentions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find merit in the present petition on the following grounds: i. Petitioners have actively participated in the commission of offence and brutally attacked the complainant while armed with deadly weapons, i.e. pistol, screwdriver and datar; ii. The petitioners not only attacked the complainant once; rather, along with other co-accused, they also went to the

-4hospital where the complainant was undergoing treatment and again assaulted him with deadly weapons;

iii. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are habitual offenders and are also involved in other cases;

iv. Total 17 injuries have been caused to the complainant, out of which, three have been declared as grievous in nature; v. The whole occurrence was captured in the CCTV cameras; vi. The manner and the nature, in which, the offence has been committed; and vii. Petitioners are required for custodial interrogation for proper investigation of the case and for recovery of the weapons.

7.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as 'CBI Vs. Anil Sharma, 1997 AIR Supreme Court 3806' decided on 03.08.1997, has emphasized the importance of custodial interrogation by holding that many useful informations and concealed materials may be elicited from a suspect in custody, rather than from a suspect who is well-protected by an order of anticipatory bail, in which case, interrogation may be reduced to a mere ritual. 8.

So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the allegations against the petitioners that they while armed with deadly weapons attacked the complainant at his house and in the hospital while he was undergoing treatment and caused injuries to him, this Court finds no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners and, therefore, the present petition stands dismissed.

-59.

Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court lest it may prejudice the trial. The learned trial court is directed to proceed with the trial on its own merits strictly in accordance with law.

(SUBHAS MEHLA) May 11, 2026 JUDGE Manisha (i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable Yes/No