Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in Violent Assault Case; Holds Custodial Interrogation Necessary for Fair and Effective Investigation

Case Name: Mangal Singh vs. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 20 November 2025
Citation: CRM-M-65316-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 BNSS seeking anticipatory bail in an FIR alleging a violent armed assault, holding that the accusations were grave, the petitioner’s specific role was prima facie established from the FIR itself, and custodial interrogation was indispensable for effective investigation. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to parity with co-accused who were granted bail because the allegations against them were of causing only simple injuries, whereas the petitioner was attributed a gandasi blow on the victim’s head with an intention to kill.

Summary: The FIR was registered on the complaint of Laddu Singh, who alleged that on 05.06.2025 the petitioner, armed with a gandasi, along with several armed co-accused, forcibly entered the complainant’s home while hurling abuses. As recorded on pages 1 and 2 of the judgment, the petitioner was specifically alleged to have inflicted a gandasi blow on the head of Jaswant Singh, the complainant’s brother, causing a serious injury on the left side of his skull. The co-accused were attributed assaults with kirpan, kappa, dangs, and baseball bats. The FIR further recorded that household property was damaged and brickbats were thrown, after which the assailants fled when neighbours gathered.

The petitioner argued that he was innocent and falsely implicated; that the FIR was a counter-blast to an earlier DDR; that other co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court; and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as he was willing to cooperate with investigation. He asserted that the FIR lacked material particulars and should not be relied upon at this stage.

The State opposed the petition, submitting that investigation was at a preliminary stage and the recovery of the gandasi allegedly used by the petitioner was yet to be effected. It was argued that custodial interrogation was essential to ascertain the truth and that granting anticipatory bail would impede the investigation.

The Court examined the relevant principles governing anticipatory bail, extensively referring to Supreme Court judgments, including Kishor Vishwasrao Patil v. Deepak Yashwant Patil, Adri Dharan Das v. State of West Bengal, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), and State v. Anil Sharma. The Court reiterated that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy; that its grant depends on the seriousness of allegations, the role attributed to the accused, and the needs of fair investigation; and that custodial interrogation often becomes necessary in cases involving grave violence.

The Court held that the allegations against the petitioner were qualitatively distinct from those levelled against the co-accused who had secured bail, because the petitioner alone was attributed a weapon-blow on the head of the victim with the intention to kill. The Court therefore rejected the plea for parity. It further held that no plausible ground was shown to suggest false implication at this stage and that the material on record, including the preliminary investigation, established a reasonable basis for the accusations.

The Court also emphasised that granting anticipatory bail in such circumstances would impede effective interrogation, citing the Supreme Court’s observation that custodial interrogation is “qualitatively more elicitation-oriented” and cannot be reduced to a mere ritual when a suspect is protected by a pre-arrest order.

Decision: The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed. The Court held that the gravity of accusations, the specific role of the petitioner, and the necessity of custodial interrogation for unearthing the truth rendered the petitioner ineligible for anticipatory bail. It clarified that nothing in the order would prejudge the merits of investigation.