Anticipatory Bail Denied in Violent Assault and Robbery Case Involving House Trespass and Snatching

Case Name: Sukhmaan Singh @ Kaka v. State of Punjab

Date of Judgment: 05 March 2026

Citation: CRM-M-11057-2026

Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted where the accused is specifically named in the FIR, grave allegations involving violent assault and house trespass with deadly weapons are made, and custodial interrogation is necessary for effective investigation. The Court emphasized that while deciding anticipatory bail, the Court must balance individual liberty with societal interest and the need for a fair investigation.

Summary: The petitioner filed a second petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 257 dated 12.11.2025 registered at Police Station Sadar Faridkot for offences under Sections 111, 333, 115(2), 351(3), 304 and 3(5) of the BNS Act, 2023 (earlier Sections 452, 323, 506(2), 379-B and 34 IPC). The earlier anticipatory bail petition had been withdrawn with liberty to file afresh after disclosing complete antecedents.

According to the prosecution, the complainant alleged that the petitioner along with co-accused forcibly entered the complainant’s house armed with weapons including an iron rod, kirpan and dang. They allegedly assaulted the complainant and his companions after raising a threat that they would teach him a lesson for approaching the police. During the incident, one of the accused snatched the complainant’s wallet containing ₹2,000 along with Aadhaar and PAN cards before fleeing the spot while issuing death threats.

The petitioner contended that the allegations were false and motivated by village factionalism. It was argued that there was a delay of one day in lodging the FIR and that the petitioner himself had suffered injuries and was hospitalized. The defence further submitted that nothing was to be recovered from the petitioner and he was willing to join the investigation, therefore custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

Opposing the petition, the State submitted that the allegations were serious and the petitioner had been specifically named in the FIR as an active participant in the assault. It was also argued that the petitioner did not have clean antecedents and was involved in other criminal cases. The State contended that custodial interrogation was essential for a proper investigation and there was a likelihood of the petitioner influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence if released on anticipatory bail.

The Court observed that the allegations reflected a violent attack involving house trespass, use of deadly weapons, and snatching of valuables. The complainant had clearly attributed a specific role to the petitioner and other accused in the assault. The Court also noted that the petitioner did not have clean antecedents and had been involved in other FIRs.

Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in State v. Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187, the Court reiterated that custodial interrogation is often necessary for effective investigation and cannot be avoided merely by granting pre-arrest bail.

Considering the gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioner, the serious nature of the injuries, and the need for custodial interrogation, the Court held that no exceptional ground was made out for grant of anticipatory bail.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition seeking anticipatory bail, holding that the seriousness of the allegations and the necessity of custodial interrogation warranted denial of pre-arrest bail at this stage.