Punjab & Haryana High Court denies anticipatory bail in assault and criminal intimidation case, cites Sumitha Pradeep and Anil Sharma precedents
Case Name: Kavita @ Sonia v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: October 06, 2025
Citation: CRM-M-56388-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with an FIR registered for offences under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 303(2), 351(3), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Court held that serious and specific allegations of physical assault, criminal intimidation, and theft warranted custodial interrogation. Referring to Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K. (2022) 4 RCR (Criminal) 977 and State v. Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187, the Court observed that anticipatory bail should not be granted where prima facie evidence and gravity of offences justify arrest and investigation.
Summary: The FIR, lodged by Veerpal Kaur at Police Station Zirakpur, alleged that on July 28, 2025, while she was alone at home, her neighbours Piya Singh and Sonia Singh (the petitioner) abused her in filthy language and attacked her with a stick. When she tried to defend herself, she sustained multiple injuries, including one grievous injury to her leg. The complainant alleged that the petitioner also tried to strangulate her and snatched her gold chain during the assault. Following the attack, she was hospitalized at Civil Hospital, Dhakoli.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the FIR was filed nine days after the alleged incident and was a counterblast to earlier complaints lodged by her sister against the complainant and her husband. It was also submitted that the petitioner suffered from psychiatric illness, had no previous criminal record, and that no recovery remained pending. The State opposed bail, emphasizing corroborative medical evidence, independent witnesses, and the need for custodial interrogation to recover the weapon of offence and verify the snatched property.
Justice Sumeet Goel cited Sumitha Pradeep to clarify that absence of custodial interrogation need does not automatically justify bail and reiterated from Anil Sharma that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more effective than questioning an accused under the shield of pre-arrest protection. The Court held that the FIR disclosed a clear prima facie case, the allegations were grave, and the investigation was still at an early stage.
Decision: The Court held that the material on record supported the prosecution’s version, showing serious allegations of assault, intimidation, and theft corroborated by medical evidence. It found custodial interrogation necessary for a fair and complete investigation. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail petition was dismissed, with the Court cautioning that its observations were not to be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.