Narang Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on: 08.09.2025

Pronounced on: 29.09.2025 Narang Singh and others

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Ms. Ashu Rana, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, D.A.G., Punjab.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 23.06.2025 Julkan, District 115(2), 118(1), 190, 191(3) Patiala BNS 1.

The petitioners apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above have come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail.

2.

Per paragraph 8 of the bail petition, the petitioners have no criminal antecedents. 3.

The facts and allegations are being taken from the status report filed by the State, which reads as follows:

"3.

That brief facts of the case are that FIR no. 57 dated 23.06.2025 U/S 115 (2), 118 (1), 190 and 191 (3) of BNS was registered at Police Station Julkan, District Patiala against Ram Lal, Shayam Lal, Narang Singh sons of Karnail Singh, Panju son of Ram Lal, Budh Singh and Mangal Singh sons of Lakhvir Singh, Krishna Devi wife of Karnail Singh and Gurnam Kaur wife of Ram Lal, all residents of Village Chirwa, Julkan, District Patiala, on the basis of a complaint moved by Goldy son of Harkesh Singh resident of village Chirwa, Julkan, District Patiala, in which he alleged that on 31.5.2025 when he had gone to his fields for a round then saw that "Vatt" of his field was cut. Then at about 6.30 p.m. he alongwith his brother Toni son of Harkesh Singh enquired from Ram Lal son Karnail Singh resident of Chirwa that as to he has cut the "Vatt' of his field then Ram Lal started abusing him and his brother Toni and when they restrained Ram Lal not to abuse them then Ram Lal took out a Sword from his house and gave a sword blow upon him and in order to save himself he moved forward his

hands and the blows hit upon his both hands. He further stated that then in the mean time Shyam Lal, Narang Singh sons of Karnail Singh, Panju son of Ram Lal, Budh Singh, Mangal Singh sons of Lakhvir Singh, Krishna Devi wife of Karnail Singh and Gurnam Kaur wife of Ram Lal all residents of Chirwa came their being armed with Danda and Sotas and Sham Lal gave Danda blow upon Toni which hit on the right side of the head of Toni and the second Danda blow hit upon the wrist of left arm. He further stated that all the other accused gave beatings to them with Dandas and Sotas. They raised raula Bachao Bachao and upon hearing this people from village gathered there and on seeing the gathering accused fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. Thereafter, they were admitted to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala where they were under treatment. On the basis of statement, FIR of the present case has been registered." 4.

The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioners and their family.

5.

The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioners would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioners repeat the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioners shall have no objection.

6.

The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report. 7.

It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report, which read as follows:

"17.

That the accused/petitioners are named in the FIR and the complainant stated that Ram Lal son of Karnail Singh hurled abuses to complainant Goldy and his brother Toni on 31.05.2025 at about 06:30 PM, and the complainant alleged that when they told him that why Boundary/Vatt of their farm is dug by him, then Ram Lal hurled abuses and when they tried to stop him from abusing, then Ram Lal brought Kirpan from his house and attacked the complainant and his brother and caused injuries to him and the in meanwhile petitioner no. 3 i.e. Shyam Lal, petitioner no. 1 i.e. Narang Singh sons of Karnail Singh, Budh Singh and Mangal Singh sons of Lakhvir Singh, Krishna Devi wife of Karnail Singh and Gurnam Kaur wife of Ram Lal came their armed with wooden sticks (dandas and sotas) and then petitioner no. 3 i.e. Shyam Lal gave danda blow on the right side of head of Toni and gave another danda blow on the left elbow joint of Toni and then all the accused gave wooden stick blows on their persons. When they raised alarm, the accused persons fled away along with their respective arms."

8.

Allegations against the petitioners are that they along with co-accused inflicted injuries upon the complainant and his brother with sword, dandas and sotas and there is a sharp edge injury on the left hand four finger on the person of Toni, but keeping in view the clean antecedents of the petitioners and the undertaking given by their counsel, this Court deems it appropriate to afford one opportunity to the petitioners to course correct. Moreover, it is a case of version and cross-version. 9.

The law of bail, like any other branch of law, has its own philosophy, and occupies an important place in the administration of justice and the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime, and presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal.1Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.2 Personal liberty deprived when bail is refused, is too precious a value of our constitutional system recognised under Art. 21 that the curial power to negate it is a great trust exercisable, not casually, but judicially with lively concern for the cost to the individual and the community.3 10.

The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage, but is analyzing it for the stage of anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration.

11.

Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, petitioners clean antecedents and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pretrial incarceration at this stage. 12.

Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioners make a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.

CONDITIONS:

13.

Given above, provided the petitioners are not required in any other case, the petitioners shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty 1 Supreme Court of India in Vaman Narain Ghiya v. state of Rajasthan, [E-SCR] ; [2008] 17 SCR 369, Para 16, decided on 12.12.2008.

2 Supreme Court of India in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, SC 2J [E-SCR], Paragraph 127, decided on 02.12.2010.

3 Supreme Court of India in Babu Singh & ors v. State of UP, [E-SCR] P. 777, decided on 31.01.1978.

Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 14.

While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioners shall mention the following personal identification details:

1.

AADHAR number 2.

Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

3.

Mobile number (If available) 4.

E-Mail id (If available) 15.

The petitioners are directed to join the investigation within seven days of uploading this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Investigator. The petitioners shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During the investigation, the petitioners shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc. 16.

Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioners shall not enter the property, workplace, and residence of the victim until the statements of all non-official and informal witnesses in the trial are recorded. This Court is imposing this condition to rule out any attempt by the accused to incapacitate, influence, or cause any discomfort to the victim. Reference be made to Vikram Singh v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 All SCR (Crl.) 458); and Aparna Bhatt v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021:INSC:192, 2021 SCC Online SC 230. 17.

Given the background of allegations against the petitioners, it becomes paramount to protect the victim, members of society, and incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanction].

Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioners shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days of the uploading of this order on the official webpage of this Court and inform the Investigator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioners shall be entitled to renew and reclaim them in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under the concerned rules.

Restricting firearms would instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense.

18.

The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that "The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed."

19.

In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sections mentioned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above; then, in that case, the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioners notice of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law. 20.

It is clarified that if the petitioners violate any bail condition, the State and/or the victim may file an application for bail cancellation before the trial court, which shall be competent to cancel the bail or add more conditions. Furthermore, if the petitioners move for deletion or dilution of any bail conditions, the trial court is empowered to do so. 21.

The significant consideration for granting bail is that the Court aims to give the petitioners another chance to course-correct, reform, and reintegrate into the community as an ideal citizen. To ensure that the petitioners also abides by the assurance made on the petitioner's behalf by not repeating the offence or indulging in any crime, it shall be desirable to impose the following additional condition. 22.

This bail is conditional, with the foundational condition being that if the petitioners repeat the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State shall file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and as per their discretion, they may cancel this bail.

23.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 24.

A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the petitioners can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. 25.

Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 29.09.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable:

No.