Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in Violent Neighbourhood Assault Case, Citing Gravity of Allegations and Need for Custodial Interrogation
Case Name: Narinder Kumar and Another v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: October 14, 2025
Citation: CRM-M-57738-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail plea filed by two accused in a violent neighbourhood assault case, observing that the allegations involved armed trespass, physical assault on a teacher’s family, and injuries to an 8-year-old child. Justice Sumeet Goel held that custodial interrogation was necessary for effective recovery of weapons and verification of roles of all accused, and that pre-arrest protection at this stage would impede the investigation. The Court emphasized that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be granted only in exceptional circumstances where false implication is apparent — conditions not satisfied in this case.
Summary: The FIR (No. 133 dated September 23, 2025) was registered at Police Station Kathgarh, District SBS Nagar, under Sections 61(2), 115(2), 333, 351(1), 351(3), 324(4), and 324(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on a complaint by Ram Kumar, a government school teacher. He alleged that Narinder Kumar and Kamal Kumar, along with co-accused, attacked his home, assaulted him and his 8-year-old son with swords (kirpans), vandalized CCTV cameras and vehicles, and pelted stones, causing multiple injuries to his family.
The defence argued that the petitioners were falsely implicated due to a long-standing neighbourhood dispute, that no specific injury was attributed to them, and that the FIR was exaggerated and uncorroborated by independent witnesses. They contended that the weapons were yet to be recovered and custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
The State and the complainant opposed the bail plea, highlighting the severity of the assault, injuries to multiple persons including a minor, and deliberate property damage. They argued that custodial interrogation was essential for recovery of weapons and examination of CCTV evidence.
Justice Sumeet Goel referred to Kishor Vishwasrao Patil v. Deepak Yashwant Patil (SLP (Crl) No. 1125-2022), Sushila Agrawal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1, and State v. Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187, reiterating that arrest during investigation serves a legitimate purpose of uncovering evidence and ensuring accountability. The Court observed that the incident occurred in broad daylight, endangering the complainant’s family, and that the medical records corroborated the attack.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the allegations revealed prima facie participation of the accused in a serious and violent crime. It concluded that granting pre-arrest bail would obstruct effective investigation and recovery. The Court clarified that the observations were limited to the bail context and would not affect the trial’s merits.