Ranbir Alias Ranbir Kumar v. State Of Punjab

-:1:-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH (103) Date of Decision:01.07.2026 RANBIR ALIAS RANBIR KUMAR ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent -.-

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Manu Loona, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.

-.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral) 1.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under the relevant provisions of law seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.154 dated 29.10.2025, registered under Sections 304 BNS (379 IPC), 115(2) BNS (323 IPC), 324(4) BNS (427 IPC), 117(2) BNS (325 IPC), 3(5) BNS (34 IPC) and 351(2) BNS (506 IPC), with Section 117(2) BNS (325 IPC) having been added subsequently vide DDR No.23 dated 18.11.2025, at Police Station Khui Khera, District Fazilka (Annexure P-1). The petitioner asserts that he is innocent, has been falsely implicated in the present case, and has no involvement whatsoever in the commission of the alleged offences.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned FIR has been registered after an inordinate and wholly unexplained delay

-:2:- of 22 days, thereby casting serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence and has been falsely attributed a role in the alleged incident. Rather, at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was on a religious pilgrimage to Salasar Balaji, Khatu Shyam Ji and Jiwan Mata Mandir, thereby completely ruling out his presence at the scene of occurrence. It is further contended that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner and, therefore, his custodial interrogation is wholly unwarranted. Learned counsel further submits that a long-standing civil dispute is pending between the petitioner and the complainant, who are real brothers, with partition proceedings concerning the ancestral land presently pending before the Revenue Courts.

It is argued that the present criminal proceedings have been maliciously instituted solely with a view to armtwist the petitioner and exert undue pressure upon him in the pending civil litigation. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and to cooperate with the Investigating Agency as and when required. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petitioner be granted the concession of anticipatory bail.

3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State of Punjab. 5.

As per the allegations contained in the First Information Report, on 07.10.2025 at about 3:00 p.m., Sunil Kumar, armed with a Kapa, Salochna, armed with a Soti, the present applicant-accused Ranbir,

-:3:- also armed with a Kapa, along with Pankaj Kumar, arrived at the place of occurrence on a Peter Rehra. It is alleged that Pankaj Kumar deliberately rammed the Rehra into the motorcycle belonging to the complainant, Sahib Ram, thereby causing damage to the vehicle. Thereafter, the applicant-accused allegedly inflicted a Kapa blow on the right leg of the complainant. Pankaj Kumar is stated to have assaulted the complainant with an iron pipe on his right ankle, while Salochna allegedly struck him with a Soti. It is further alleged that Pankaj Kumar forcibly removed a sum of 5,000/- ₹ from the complainant's pocket. When the complainant's son intervened in an attempt to rescue his father, he too was allegedly assaulted by all the accused persons. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present FIR came to be registered under the relevant provisions of law.

6.

Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that the allegations levelled against the applicant-accused are grave and specific in nature. It is contended that the complainant and his son were subjected to a brutal assault by the accused persons acting in furtherance of their common intention. It is further submitted that a grievous injury, resulting in a fracture, has been specifically attributed to the present applicant-accused and, therefore, he does not deserve the extraordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

7.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have carefully perused the paper-book, including the First

-:4:- Information Report, the medico-legal report, and the material available on the record.

8.

A perusal of the allegations contained in the FIR, read conjointly with the medico-legal report of the complainant, prima facie reveals that Sahib Ram sustained a lacerated wound measuring 5.4 cm × 3 cm, bone deep, on the medial aspect of his right leg. Fresh bleeding was noticed at the time of medical examination. Visible deformity was present, accompanied by restriction in the movement of the affected limb. The subsequent radiological examination confirmed that the injury was grievous in nature, involving a fracture of the right leg. Significantly, this grievous injury has been specifically attributed to the present applicantaccused, who is alleged to have inflicted the Kapa blow resulting in the fracture.

8.1.

The mere fact that there is a delay in the registration of the FIR, by itself, is insufficient at this stage to discredit the prosecution version or to confer upon the applicant the benefit of anticipatory bail. The evidentiary significance and effect of such delay are matters which can only be appropriately examined during the course of trial after appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. 8.2.

It is also pertinent to note that the complainant is stated to have sustained as many as twelve injuries, thereby prima facie lending credence to the prosecution version regarding the severity of the assault. 8.3.

The plea of alibi, sought to be raised by the applicant on the basis that he was allegedly visiting religious places at the relevant time, is

-:5:- equally a matter requiring adjudication during trial. Except for certain photographs annexed as Annexure P-2, no cogent or unimpeachable material has been placed on record to conclusively establish the applicant's presence at a place other than the scene of occurrence. The authenticity, evidentiary value, and admissibility of the said photographs can only be tested during the course of trial and cannot be accepted at their face value while considering an application for anticipatory bail. 8.4.

Having regard to the nature and gravity of the accusations, the specific attribution of a grievous injury to the applicant-accused, the material collected during investigation, and the settled principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C./Section 482 BNSS relating to anticipatory bail, this Court does not find the present case to be a fit one for extending the extraordinary discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail.

8.5.

Consequently, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

9.

It is explicitly clarified that the observations and findings recorded hereinabove are intended solely for the limited purpose of adjudicating the present application. They shall not be construed, interpreted, or relied upon as a definitive expression of opinion on the underlying merits of the substantive dispute. Nothing contained in this order shall prejudice, fetter, or influence the respective rights, claims, or contentions of the parties in the main trial or any other collateral

-:6:- proceedings, nor shall it be treated as a binding determination on any question of fact or law yet to be adjudicated. 10.

Consequent upon the final adjudication of the principal matter, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, survive no independent cause of action and stand disposed of accordingly. No further directions or orders are required to be passed in this regard. ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 01.07.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking?

Yes / No Whether reportable?

Yes / No