Dilpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 BNSS has been invoked for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.221 dated 09.11.2025 under Section 115 (2), 118(1), 74, 296, 191(3), 190, 3(5) of BNS and Section 117(2) (added later on) {Corresponding sections 323, 324, 354, 294, 148, 149 IPC (Section 325 IPC added later on)}, registered at Police Station Sadar Jagraon, District Ludhiana.

¶19

The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:-

¶20

"Statement of xxxxx wife of Jaspreet Singh resident of Sohian, Police Station Sadar Jagraon District Ludhiana Rural, age around 38 years, mobile no. 97810-xxccx, stated that I am a resident of the above address and do household chores. On 07.11.2025 at about 6:15 PM, I

¶21

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.25 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CRM-M-22541-2026 (O&M) - 2-

¶23

went to the place where wood is kept in front of my house to collect wood, when Dilpreet Singh son of Narang Singh, Karanpreet Singh son of Narang Singh, Harwinder Singh son of Kulwant Singh, Narang Singh son of Surjit Singh, Surjit Singh son of Bachan Singh, Bablu son of Kaka who were standing at Mana Wala Chowk village Sohian saw me, they started abusing me and making obscene gestures by touching their private parts and started challenging me saying that I survived last time, but not this time, I will not let you go now, I cannot hear their abuses. I took the stick I was holding in my hand to turn over the wood and went towards them, then Dilpreet Singh and all the others threw me down and Dilpreet Singh who was holding a kirpan in his hand attacked my left hand with his small kirpan, and the kirpan hit my thumb and pinky finger of my hand. Karanpreet Singh mentioned above who had a dagger in his hand attacked my left leg below the knee twice, Harwinder Singh mentioned above who had a kirpan in his hand attacked my left arm. Bablu mentioned above attacked the upper part of my right arm and wrist with his small dagger. Narang Singh mentioned above attacked my left shoulder with his small baseball bat. Then Harwinder Singh mentioned above attacked the left side of my forehead with his small kirpan, after that I fell down and all of them started kicking me and attacked me with kirpans, daggers and sticks. At that time, Sarpanch Kulwant Singh son of Surjit Singh came. He caught Harwinder Singh's kirpan and attacked the fingers of my left hand. And while I was lying down, Kulwant Singh and his father Surjit Singh tore my clothes and very much If more abusive language was used, then on leaving, Sarpanch Kulwant Singh slapped my face. After that Gurpinder Singh son of Bhupinder Singh, Hakam Singh son of Hardev Singh, RanjitSingh son of Ajaib Singh, Harmel Singh son of Bachan Singh, Amritpal Singh son of Harmel Singh and Arshdeep Singh son of Joginder Singh residents of Sohia attacked me with sticks in their hands. When I cried for help, Amanpreet Singh son of Roop Singh and Surjit Kaur came and rescued me from them and then my husband Jaspreet Singh admitted me to Civil Hospital Jagraon. Where I am currently undergoing treatment. The reason for the dispute is that Sarpanch Kulwant Singh and his son and nephews harass us when we pass by. Earlier also they had come to our house and beaten us up. The statement has been written for you, heard and is correct. Signed/- xxxx Confirmed by SD/- Jaspreet Singh Verified Signed/- Manjit Singh ASI Chowki Police Station Sadar Jagraon Date:- 09.11.2025."

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the complainant, by leveling sweeping and baseless allegations. It is submitted that in fact, the father-in-law of the complainant had taken illegal possession of the Panchayati land, in which regard an FIR No.188 dated 16.09.2025 was got registered against him. As a counter-blast to the same, the instant FIR was lodged against as many as 13 persons, including the petitioner. However, a

¶25

bare perusal of the same does not reveal any motive for the petitioner to

¶26

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.25 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CRM-M-22541-2026 (O&M) - 3-

¶28

have committed the alleged offence. Moreover, some of the co-accused have even been declared innocent by the SIT. It is submitted that the petitioner is willing to join investigation and co-operate.

¶29

Per contra, learned State counsel as well as counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that there are specific and serious allegations against the petitioner. They state that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of offence.

¶30

Status report by way of affidavit of Kulwant Singh, PPS, DSP, Special Crimes, District Ludhiana (Rural) filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. Copy of the same has been furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned State counsel while relying upon the status report dated 19.05.2026 submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other co-accused inflicted multiple injuries upon the complainant and one other person. As per the injury chart mentioned in the status report, the complainant received as many as 13 injuries, whereas one Amanpreet Singh suffered 7 injuries. A comprehensive chart with reference to the details of the injuries inflicted on the complainant and Amanpreet Singh are as follows:-

¶31

Name of injured	Injury No.	Place of injury	Kind weapon	Nature of injury/ weapon	Name of accused	Offence
Manpreet Kaur	1	Left side head	Sharp	Simple Kirpan	Harwinder Singh	324 IPC
	2	Middle finger of Lt. head	Blunt	Grievous Kirpan	Dilpreet Singh	325 IPC
	3	Wrist joint of Lt hand	Blunt	Simple Kirpan		323 IPC
	4	Lower Lt leg	Blunt	Simple Kirth		323 IPC
	5	Lower Lt leg	Blunt	Simple Kirch		323 IPC
	6	Wrist of Rt. arm	Sharp	Simple	Bablu	324 IPC
	7	Lt thigh	Blunt	Simple		323 IPC

¶32

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.25 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

CRM-M-22541-2026 (O&M) - 4-

¶34

	8	Lt. knee joint	Blunt	Simple		323 IPC
	9	Rt. leg	Blunt	Simple		323 IPC
	10	Rt. shoulder	Blunt	Simple		323 IPC
	11	Lt. shoulder	Blunt	Simple baseball	Narang Singh	323 IPC
	12	Lt. arm	Blunt	Simple kirpan	Harwinder Singh	323 IPC
	13	Lt. wrist joint	Blunt	Grievous		325 IPC
Amanpreet Singh	1	Lt. head	Blunt	Grievous kirpan	Dilpreet Singh	325 IPC
	2	Rt head	Blunt	Grievous		325 IPC
	3	Back	Blunt	Simple baseball	Narang Singh	323 IPC
	4	Middle finger of hand	Lt Blunt	Simple kirpan	Bablu	323 IPC
	5	Rt shoulder	Blunt	Simple		323 IPC
	6	Lt shoulder	Blunt	Simple		323 IPC
	7	Lt eye lid	Blunt	Simple		323 IPC

¶35

It is submitted that in view of the opinion given on the injuries, Section 117(2) of BNS was subsequently added vide DDR No.27 dated 18.11.2025. Moreover, the anticipatory bail petitions filed by the two coaccused have been dismissed by this Court vide order common order dated 09.02.2026 in CRM-M-69880-2025 and vide order of even date passed in CRM-M-1060-2026. She further submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessitated in this case so as to ascertain the true factual aspect of the alleged occurrence, and for the recovery of the weapons of offence.

¶36

Learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated the averments made by the learned State counsel, and submits that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.

¶37

Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶38

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.25 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

CRM-M-22541-2026 (O&M) - 5-

¶40

At this stage, a gainful reference can be made to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in ‘ X Vs. Arun Kumar CK (Criminal Appeal No.1834/2022) ’, relevant portion whereof reads

¶41

thus:-

¶42

“x x x x

¶43

In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.”

¶44

Reverting to the case in hand, prima facie serious allegations

¶45

have been levelled that the petitioner, armed with a kirpan and, in connivance with other co-accused, inflicted multiple injuries on the person of the complainant and one other person. The respective injury chart of the complainant and the other person disclose that as many as 13 and 7 injuries were suffered by them in the group attack. One of the two grievous injuries suffered by each, was allegedly inflicted by the petitioner. Therefore, having regard to the gravity of the alleged offence, role of the petitioner and the material on record, this Court is not inclined to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶46