In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Balraj Singh, emphasizing that uploading videos on social media glorifying crime and issuing threats can be a ground for denial of bail. The court observed that such actions could interfere with the legal process and intimidate the complainant.
Case Background
The case arose from an FIR (No. 71, dated October 26, 2023) registered at Police Station Sandaur, District Malerkotla, under Sections 451, 323, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), with additional charges under Sections 452, 325, and 324 IPC being added later. The complainant, Gurkamal Singh, alleged that Balraj Singh and his associates trespassed into his house and assaulted him, resulting in severe injuries, including a fractured nose.
According to the FIR, the complainant, a Class 12 student, was alone at home with his elderly grandparents when Balraj Singh and two others, Daler Singh and Paramvir Singh, attacked him. The complainant was allegedly beaten, threatened, and left unconscious. The motive for the attack was reportedly long-standing personal animosity.
Court Proceedings and Legal Issues
The petition (CRM-M-9730-2025) for anticipatory bail was heard by Justice N.S. Shekhawat. Mr. Abdul Aziz represented the petitioner, while Mr. M.S. Bajwa, Deputy Advocate General of Punjab, and Mr. Sparsh Chhiber (appearing virtually) represented the complainant.
The primary legal issues before the court included:
Whether the delay of ten days in lodging the FIR affected its credibility.
Whether the presence of Balraj Singh at the scene of the crime was substantiated.
Whether the accused’s conduct after the alleged incident warranted denial of anticipatory bail.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that there was an unexplained delay in registering the FIR and that Balraj Singh was falsely implicated. The petitioner also contended that he was willing to cooperate with the investigation.
On the other hand, the State and the complainant’s counsel strongly opposed the bail, citing the accused’s history of criminal cases and the alleged uploading of threatening videos on Instagram, which could influence the case and intimidate the complainant.
Court’s Decision and Observations
Dismissing the bail plea, the court observed:
“There are serious allegations against the petitioner of trespassing into the complainant’s house and causing grievous hurt. Even more concerning is the fact that after the alleged assault, the petitioner uploaded videos on social media, extending threats to the complainant. Such conduct demonstrates an intent to influence the legal proceedings and intimidate witnesses.”
The court further emphasized that granting bail in such circumstances could lead to interference with the investigation, as the accused might attempt to destroy evidence, including the retrieval of videos uploaded online. It also noted that custodial interrogation was necessary to ascertain the involvement of other co-accused and to recover the mobile phone used for uploading the videos.
