| |
CDJ 2026 PHC 086
|
| Court : High Court of Punjab & Haryana |
| Case No : CRM-M-No. 34314 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI |
| Parties : Yuvraj Singh Versus State of Haryana |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Bisman Mann & Simranjit Singh Virk, Advocates. For the Respondent: -----. |
| Date of Judgment : 26-06-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
BNSS, 2023 - Section 482 -
Comparative Citation:
2026 PHHC 088240,
|
| Summary :- |
Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations, and Sections Mentioned:
- Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.)
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- Sections 115, 118(1), 126, 190, 191(3), 351(3) and 118(2) (added later on)/323, 324, 339, 149, 148 and 326 (added later on) of the BNS
- Section 438 of the Code
- Adri Dharan Das vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2005 SC 1057
Catch Words:
anticipatory bail, custodial interrogation, arrest, investigation, grievous injuries, sharp‑edged weapon, blunt weapon, weapon recovery, Supreme Court precedent
Summary:
The petition under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 seeks anticipatory bail for the accused in a FIR involving multiple offences, including assault with a sharp‑edged weapon. The petitioner admits presence at the incident but claims to have suffered injuries and is willing to cooperate with the investigation. The State argues that custodial interrogation is essential for weapon recovery and to ascertain the facts, given the victim’s grievous injuries. The Court notes that the presence of the petitioner is undisputed and that interrogation is necessary, especially to locate the weapon. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in *Adri Dharan Das* regarding the limited scope of interference under Section 438, the Court finds no ground to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Oral):
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.) seeking the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 122 dated 29.05.2026, registered under Sections 115, 118(1), 126, 190, 191(3), 351(3) and 118(2) (added later on)/323, 324, 339, 149, 148 and 326 (added later on) of the BNS at Police Station Safidon, District Jind, Haryana.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though the presence of the petitioner at the place of occurrence is not denied, the incident was a fight between two groups of young persons in which both sides suffered injuries.
3. Notice of motion.
4. Mr. Rahul Dev, Addl. A.G., Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Amit Khatkar, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the complainant and has filed his Vakalatnama. The same is taken on record.
5. A short affidavit of Mr. Gaurav Sharma, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Safidon has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State. The same is taken on record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency, especially when the petitioner himself had also suffered injuries during the said incident.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the victim suffered grievous injuries inflicted by both a sharp-edged weapon and a blunt weapon. It is further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary, particularly as the weapon of offence is yet to be recovered.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation is being carried out in accordance with law and that whatever transpires during the course of investigation shall be duly recorded. It is further submitted that if it is found that the petitioner had also suffered injuries, the same shall also be taken into consideration.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the present case with their able assistance.
10. Since the presence of the petitioner at the place of occurrence is not disputed and it is also not disputed that the victim suffered grievous injuries, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary, inter alia, for the recovery of the weapon of offence.
11. Further, once a sharp-edged weapon was allegedly used to inflict injuries upon the victim and the injuries are stated to have been caused on the face and other vital parts of the body, no case for the grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
12. Keeping in view the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Adri Dharan Das vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2005 SC 1057 wherein, it is a settled principle of law that custodial interrogation is one of the most effective means to elicit the truth behind the allegations. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under:-
“Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes. The accused may have to be questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons, if any, in the crime. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent his dis-appearance to maintain law and order in the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest may become inevitable part of the process of investigation. The legality of the proposed arrest cannot be gone into in an application under Section 438 of the Code. The role of the investigator is well-defined and the jurisdictional scope of interference by the Court in the process of investigation is limited. The Court ordinarily will not interfere with the investigation of a crime or with the arrest of accused in a cognizable offence. An interim order restraining arrest, if passed while dealing with an application under Section 438 of the Code will amount to interference in the investigation, which cannot, at any rate, be done under Section 438 of the Code.”
13. No ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.
|
| |
