Exhortation in Murder Attack Enough to Attract Common Intention; P&H High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail
Case Name: Jasbir Singh v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 05 March 2026
Citation: CRM-M-11687-2026
Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that even where the fatal injury is attributed to a co-accused, the allegation that the petitioner raised a lalkara (exhortation) encouraging the attack is sufficient at the prima facie stage to attract the principle of common intention and justify denial of anticipatory bail in a murder case. The Court further held that prolonged evasion of arrest by an accused is a relevant factor weighing against the grant of pre-arrest bail.
Summary: The petitioner approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in FIR No. 87 dated 17.10.2024 registered at Police Station Verka, Amritsar for offences punishable under Sections 103 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Sections 302 and 34 IPC), with Section 201 IPC added later during investigation.
According to the prosecution case, on 12.10.2024 the deceased Harvinder Singh was travelling towards Gurudwara Nanksar Sahib along with his friend Jobanpreet Singh when he was intercepted by the petitioner along with co-accused Harpreet Singh @ Happy and others. It was alleged that the petitioner raised a lalkara exhorting the co-accused to teach the deceased a lesson due to a prior dispute. Acting on this exhortation, co-accused Harpreet Singh allegedly inflicted a kirch blow on the groin of the deceased.
Initially, the injured was admitted to Civil Hospital, Verka where the wound was stitched and he was discharged. However, his condition deteriorated the next day and he was admitted to a private hospital where he succumbed to his injuries on 16.10.2024. As per the post-mortem report, the cause of death was multi-organ failure resulting from septicemia arising from the injury, which was opined to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
The petitioner argued that he had been falsely implicated and that no overt act or injury had been attributed to him except the allegation of presence and exhortation. It was contended that the fatal injury had been inflicted by the co-accused and therefore the petitioner could not be held liable for the offence of murder. The petitioner further argued that the deceased had initially been discharged from the hospital, indicating that the injury was not considered life-threatening at that time. It was also contended that the exact cause of death could involve infection or possible medical negligence and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
The State opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner had been specifically named in the FIR and had actively participated in the occurrence. It was argued that the allegations of exhortation coupled with presence at the scene demonstrated concerted action among the accused. The State further contended that custodial interrogation was required for a fair investigation and recovery of the weapon used in the offence.
The Court observed that the petitioner had been specifically named in the FIR and was alleged to have raised a lalkara exhorting the co-accused to attack the deceased. The Court held that such exhortation prima facie attracts the doctrine of common intention, and therefore the absence of a specific injury attributed to the petitioner could not be treated as a ground for anticipatory bail at this stage.
The Court further noted that the post-mortem report clearly indicated that death resulted from septicemia arising from the injury sustained during the attack. The argument that the deceased had initially been discharged from hospital or that medical negligence might have contributed to the death was held to be a matter for trial and not relevant at the stage of anticipatory bail.
Another significant factor noted by the Court was the conduct of the petitioner in evading arrest for approximately one year and four months after registration of the FIR. The Court held that such conduct demonstrated disregard for the judicial process and weighed heavily against the exercise of discretion in favour of granting anticipatory bail.
Relying on the Supreme Court decision in State v. Anil Sharma, the Court reiterated that custodial interrogation is often necessary for effective investigation and may not be possible if the accused is protected by pre-arrest bail.
Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition seeking anticipatory bail, holding that considering the gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioner, the need for custodial interrogation, and the petitioner’s prolonged evasion of arrest, he was not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.