Bittu v. State Of Punjab
CRM-M-25588-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.212 CRM-M-25588-2026 Decided on : 20.05.2026 Bittu ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM :
*** Present :
Mr. Priyanshu Kamra, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Amrit Kaur Mahir, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Derabassi, Advocate for the complainant.
*** , J (ORAL)
!"
# $
% &'(%'($'(
&'( #'
( # '
( ) ) * +
,
-.,
/
.
+
/ .1
!"
2
.
1
,
, .
!"2
3
. ,
1
+
3
.
1
CRM-M-25588-2026 2
4
.
.
1
.
$'(
./
3 It is further contended that there is nothing on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner with the said offence and, thus, his custodial interrogation is not required. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Agency and shall fully cooperate with the investigation. On these grounds, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed.
4 On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report, which is taken on record. She, while referring to the said status report, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. She contends that the complainant has specifically named the petitioner in the FIR and an active and vital role in the alleged occurrence has been attributed to him. She further contends that the grievous injury caused on the person of complainant has been attributed to the petitioner. Therefore, his custodial interrogation is required not only for the purpose of conducting fair investigation but also for ascertaining the identity and involvement of the remaining accused who had allegedly participated in the occurrence alongwith the petitioner and for recovery of swift car, snatched gold chain and the weapons used in the occurrence. Thus, the petitioner does not deserve any concession from this Court.
CRM-M-25588-2026 3 5.
Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Derabassi, Advocate has appeared and filed power of attorney on behalf of the complainant. He, while opposing the petition for anticipatory bail, has contended that the petitioner has played an active role in the crime and, thus, does not deserve the concession of bail. 6.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record, it is evident that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He has been specifically named in the FIR and an active and vital role in the alleged occurrence has been attributed to him. The petitioner has caused grievous injury on the person of complainant. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required not only for the purpose of conducting fair investigation but also for ascertaining the identity and involvement of the remaining accused who had allegedly participated in the occurrence alongwith the petitioner and for recovery of swift car, snatched gold chain and the weapons used in the occurrence.
This Court is sanguine of the fact that while considering the petition for anticipatory bail, it is required to consider the overall nature of offence and accusation against the accused, the manner of occurrence, the gravity of offence and the potential impact of granting pre-arrest protection, at this stage. Granting anticipatory bail with such allegations, at this preliminary stage, would not be justified as it may affect the course of fair investigation and undermine and seriousness of the alleged act.
7.
It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought t / ,
.
0
0
3
CRM-M-25588-2026 4 , .
4
!
,
+ .
1 5 . 6
, 7
! "#$
%
!
%
&
'
(
'
%
*
6 .
. 8
93
3 3
, 3. , :
3 . . # !
.
3 .
8
.
;
3
..
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No <
7=;