Punjab & Haryana High Court denies anticipatory bail in assault case arising from family property dispute

Case Name: Sunny @ Nishant v. State of Punjab & Another
Date of Judgment: October 06, 2025
Citation: CRM-M-56505-2025
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 (BNSS) by the petitioner, who was accused of assaulting a family member with a sword during a property dispute. The Court held that serious allegations supported by medical evidence and eyewitness statements warranted custodial interrogation. It reiterated that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be granted only in exceptional cases and that granting it in such violent offences would impede effective investigation.

Summary: The FIR was lodged at Police Station City Rupnagar, alleging that the petitioner, Sunny @ Nishant, attacked his cousin with a sword following a quarrel over use of a washing machine in their joint family home. The complainant’s father allegedly refused the petitioner access to the machine, leading to a heated argument and subsequent assault. The FIR stated that the petitioner, along with co-accused Shivam and Harry, attacked the complainant, causing multiple injuries, one of which was declared grievous.

The petitioner contended that the FIR was false and motivated, stemming from an ongoing property dispute within the family. It was argued that a family settlement executed by their grandmother had allotted the ground floor to the petitioner’s family and the first floor to the complainant, but after her death, the complainant’s family began creating disputes. The defence claimed that the injuries were simple and caused by a blunt weapon and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

The State opposed bail, emphasizing that medical records confirmed multiple injuries and that the attack was deliberate and premeditated. The Court referred to Kishor Vishwasrao Patil v. Deepak Yashwant Patil (SLP (Crl.) No. 1125-2022), Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694, and State v. Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187, highlighting that arrest forms an integral part of investigation and that custodial interrogation often yields crucial evidence.

Decision: The High Court held that the allegations against the petitioner were grave and substantiated by medical and witness evidence. It concluded that granting anticipatory bail at this stage would obstruct a fair investigation and that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the full truth. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, with the Court clarifying that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case or the investigation.