Khem Raj @ Monu Vs State of Punjab

Petitioner, who is an accu s ed in case FIR No. 0002 d a ted 04.01.20 2 6, registered against him und e r Sections 103(1), 127(2), 191 ( 3), 190 of B N S (Sections 61(2), 238 of BN S added later on), at Police Sta t ion Narot Jaimal Singh, District Pathankot, has filed the present petition for grant of a nticipatory bail.

¶16

Relevant facts as emerging from the documents on recor d be noticed h e reinbelow:-

¶17

Balwinder Kumar, son of D iwan Chand, resident of vill a ge Jhela Am a da Gurdaspur, an Labourer b y profession, set the criminal la w in motion b y filing a complaint pointing th e rein that he has two children. H is elder son Kushal Kumar, aged 24 years h as studied till 10^th standard and his

¶18

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRM-M-7635-2026 -2-

¶20

daughter Vanshika Devi is younger to Kushal Kumar and is marrie d to Balram K umar. Complainant further poi n ted out that his son Kushal Ku m ar had been emotionally attached to a gi r l named Sakshi, daughter of R aj Kumar, f o r the last four years. He (c) h a d himself gone to the house o f the girl with a view to seek approval of her p a rents and had discussed the entire issue, bu t her father Raj Kumar and fam i ly members were not ready for t his alliance.

¶21

Despite their objection, the b oy continued meeting the girl. On 3.1.2026, Kushal Kumar left the house t e lling the family members that he is going to t he fields. At about 2.30 PM, Sa r panch of their village Shri Swaran Singh int i mated him (c) that he (Swaran S ingh) had received a call from the Sarpanch of village Kohlian, who intim a ted that Kushal Kumar has been locked b y the family of Raj Kumar in t heir house. Without wasting a ny further ti m e, he reached the house of R a j Kumar on motorcycle, wher e he saw Raj K umar, Aman, Raghu, son of J o ginder Pal, who were armed w ith sticks, R a hul Kumar, son of Praveen Ku m ar, Monu (present petitioner), s on of Diwan Chand and Veer @ Sorav, all armed with sticks had surroun d ed his son K ushal. He saw the aforementio n ed persons beating Kushal Ku m ar. Complai n ant also highlighted the rol e played by each of the above mentione d persons. When he raised hu e and cry, the assailants ran a w ay from the s pot along with their respective w eapons. Someone called 108. An ambulan c e arrived, the injured was rus h ed to Civil Hospital, Narot, w h ere first aid w as provided and on seeing his delicate medical condition, he w as referred to Civil Hospital, Pathankot. The Doctors at Civil Hosp i tal, Pathankot, further referred the injure d to Guru Nanak Dev Hosp i tal, Amritsar. However, he got Kushal Kum a r admitted to Amandeep Hosp i tal,

¶22

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CRM-M-7635-2026 -3-

¶24

Pathankot, where unfortunately the boy d ied. Primarily with this backd r op, he reque s ted the police authorities to c atch hold of all those who w ere involved i n the tragic death of his young son as also to initiate appropr i ate proceedi n gs against them. On the basis of said complaint and ML R , a formal c a se vide FIR No. 0002 dated 04. 0 1.2026, was registered u/s 103(1), 127(2), 1 9 1(3), 190 of BNS (Sections 61 ( 2), 238 of BNS added later on), at Police St a tion Narot Jaimal Singh, Distri c t Pathankot.

¶25

Investigations were set into motion. On 4.1.2026, co-acc u sed Aman K u mar, Rahul and a juvenile were arrested. Post mortem examina t ion was got c o nducted.

¶26

On 8.1.2026, Balwinder K umar suffered a supplemen t ary statemen t , upon which Sahil Kumar, Jat i n Kumar and Naman Kumar w ere cited as c o-accused vide DDR No.25 d ated 08.01.2026. On 12.1.2 0 26, offence u / s 61(2) BNS and on 14.1.2026, offence u/s 238 BNS were adde d . Apprehending his arrest, p e titioner moved an application for grant of pre-arrest bail. The said app l ication was dismissed by lear n ed Addition a l Sessions Judge, Pathanko t , vide order dated 29.1.2 0 26. Aggrieve d of which, the present petition h as been filed for grant of bail. 3. Learned counsel for the peti t ioner contends that petitioner, w ho is not rel a ted to any of the parties, has b e en falsely implicated in the pre s ent case. Th e re was no occasion for him to p articipate in the incident. Lear n ed counsel f u rther contends that falsity of t h e case set up by the complaina n t is apparent f rom the fact that in the viral vi d eo, which is being circulated an d is the only basis on which the police is a lleging attribution to the acc u sed persons, c omplainant cannot be seen to be present at the site, as such his version t h at he himself witnessed his s o n being brutally assaulted by the

¶27

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CRM-M-7635-2026 -4-

¶29

accused p ersons, appears highly doubtf u l. In fact, in the video, petiti o ner can only b e seen standing on one side of the street persuading the assaul t ers not to be a t the deceased. Continuing fur t her, learned counsel contends t hat it was the petitioner who himself calle d the police by dialing the po l ice helpline a nd also insured timely arrival of the ambulance. If he would have been act i vely involved in the inciden t , his conduct would have been otherwis e . Learned counsel further c o ntends that though the custo d ial interroga t ion of petitioner is not needed, f or nothing is to be recovered f r om him, but being a law abiding citizen, h e is ready and willing to join the investiga t ion as and when called for b y the IO. Prayer for allowing the petition i s made. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel accompanied by lear n ed counsel f o r complainant (who has filed m emo of appearance today in Co u rt) have veh e mently opposed the request f o r grant of bail on the ground t hat petitione r in conspiracy with other ac c used, unleashed brutal attack on Kushal K umar by repeatedly beating hi m with sticks, giving him fist bl o ws etc. The m agnanimity of the assault ca n be inferred from the fact that the boy suf fe red multiple serious injurie s on his person and died a s a conseque n ce thereof. It is further the s u bmission of learned State cou n sel that pres e nt petitioner Khem Raj @ Mo n u had called up the police help l ine by dialin g 112 at 14:52 hours from his mobile No. 9815962636 and h ad intimated that an unknown person, who had entered into their house, has been app r ehended. Police authorities w ere asked to send the police h e lp. Thereafter, at 15:37 hours, petitioner cal l ed up from his uncle’s mobile N o. 9501029 2 17 and requested for ambulanc e . On this occasion, he changed his stance th a t a person Kushal Kumar who had entered in their house, h ad

¶30

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

CRM-M-7635-2026 -5-

¶32

fallen fr o m roof and had suffered injuries as a consequence thereof. T his conduct o f the petitioner clearly indicat e s that he along with other acc u sed had caug h t hold of Kushal Kumar and ha d assaulted him. When they se n sed that boy h ad lost consciousness, they changed their stance and present e d a different s tory, that the boy who had tre s passed into their house, had fa l len from the roof. In the light of seriousne s s and gravity of offence, custo d ial interroga t ion of petitioner is needed to find out the whereabouts of o t her accused, w ho have not been arrested till d ate and also to recover the wea p on used in t h e commission of offence. Thus, petitioner has failed to make o u t a case of e xceptional depravity or hardsh i p in his favour entitling him t his extra ord i nary relief of grant of pre-arrest bail. Dismissal of petition has been prayed fo r .

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documen t s on record.

¶34

Before expressing any opin i on on submissions raised by b oth the coun s els, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of Hon ’ ble Supreme Court, wherein the factors to be kept in mind while dealing wit h an applicati o n for grant of anticipatory bail, h ave been discussed. 7. In Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav vs. The State of Maharashtra and another, 2025 AIR SC 3375 , the Hon ’ ble Supreme Court held that “Anticipatory b ail is an exceptional remedy a nd ought not to be granted in a routine man n er.”

¶35

It would also be appropriate to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumitha Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022 Live Law (SC) 870 , wherein it was held a s follows:-

¶36

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

CRM-M-7635-2026

¶38

-6-

¶39

“It may be true, as pointed out by learned cou n sel appearing for Respondent N o.1, that charge-sheet has alre a dy been filed. It will be unfai r to presume on our part that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for t h e purpose of further investigati o n. Be that as it may, even assuming it a case w h ere Respondent No.1 is not requ i red for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have gra n ted discretionary relief of antici p atory bail.

¶40

We are dealing wit h a matter wherein the orig i nal complainant (appellant he r ein) has come before this C o urt praying that the anticipator y bail granted by the High Cou r t to the accused should be canc e lled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the H igh Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting a n ticipatory bail to the accused i n a very serious crime like POC S O and, therefore, the order pa s sed by the High Court grantin g anticipatory bail to the acc u sed should be quashed and se t aside. In many anticipatory b ail matters, we have notice d one common argument b e ing canvassed that no custodi a l interrogation is required a nd, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appear s to be a serious misconception o f law that if no case for custo d ial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that al o ne would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custo d ial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with ot h er grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipa t ory bail. There may be many c a ses in which the custodial inter r ogation of the accused may no t be required, but that does no t mean that the prima facie c ase against the accused should be ignored or overlooked an d he should be granted anticip a tory bail. The first and fore m ost thing that the court hearin g an anticipatory bail applica t ion should consider is the pri m a facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nat u re of the offence should be looked

¶41

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶42

CRM-M-7635-2026 -7-

¶43

into along with the sever i ty of the punishment. Custo d ial interrogation can be one o f the grounds to decline custo d ial interrogation. However, ev e n if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to g r ant anticipatory bail.”

¶44

Factual backdrop of the cas e leading to the lodging of the F IR has been highlighted in para 2 of this o rder. Petitioner was named by the complain a nt, who is father of the decease d and who has no prior enmity w ith the petiti o ner. At this stage, there bei n g nothing on record to doubt the version o f complainant. Further, the aut h enticity of ‘viral video’ referre d to by learned counsel for petitioner would be adjudged during the cours e of trial whe n parties would lead their evide n ce. Moreover, petitioner has been named i n the FIR to whom specific ro l e has been assigned. Importa n tly enough, d uring the course of investigatio n , it emerged that initially petiti o ner had calle d up police helpline from his m o bile and had sought police hel p on the grou n d that an unknown person wh o had entered into their house, has been app r ehended. About half an hour later, he (P) called up the po l ice helpline f rom his uncle’s mobile and n arrated a different story that the person w h o had trespassed into the house had fallen from the roof. T his contradic t ion, since remains unexplained , suggests, at least at this stage, t hat after son of complainant was brutally assaulted by petitioner and o t her accused, t he boy fell unconscious sensin g trouble, accused party immedi a tely changed th e ir version and came with the story t h at boy had fallen from room. E v en though i n the MLR, the treating Doctor n oticed only two superficial inju r ies on the p e rson of deceased but when th e post mortem was conducted, the Board of D octors noticed 12 injuries (bot h external and internal).

¶45

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶46

CRM-M-7635-2026 -8-

¶47

In view of the seriousness and gravity of offence, custo d ial interroga t ion of petitioner is needed to find out the whereabouts of o t her accused, who have not been arrested t ill date and also for recover y of weapon u sed in the commission of offe n ce. In the light of factual scen a rio, petitione r has failed to make out a case o f exceptional depravity or hard s hip in his fa v our entitling him this extra or d inary relief of grant of pre-ar r est bail.

¶48

The petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.

¶49

(AARADHNA SAWHNEY) 19.03.2026 JUDGE gbs

¶50

Whether Speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶51

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Khem Raj @ Monu v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khem Raj @ Monu v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kashmir Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sukha Singh Alias Sukha Vs State of Punjab

Manoj Kumar Vs Nirmal Singh

Rajwinder Singh Alias Rajbir Alias Raju Vs State of Punjab

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Another

Surmanpreet Kaur Vs State of Haryana