Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed by the personal security officer (‘PSO’) to a sitting High Court Judge, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail in FIR for offence under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), a Single Judge Bench of N. S. Shekhawat J. took a lenient view and allowed the petition, granting anticipatory bail to the accused, as he tendered an unconditional apology to the complainant in open Court.
Background
In the present case, the FIR was registered based on the complaint made by the Chief Court Officer(‘complainant’) of this Court. He stated that the Special Secretary to a sitting High Court Judge telephonically asked him to meet the Judge with regards to his PSO. Upon meeting, the Judge disclosed to him that two PSOs, attached to him, were performing their duty on their own and directed him to call them and inquire about it.
When the complainant called up one PSO, he learnt that both PSOs had interchanged their duties without bringing the same in the knowledge of the Judge concerned. The complainant called the PSO to meet in person for the inquiry at the Branch. When he came, the complainant enquired into the matter where he started arguing angrily and said that “you are insulting me by calling in your office.” Then in a fit of anger he took out his official pistol, pointed at the complainant and fired the shot. The branch member overpowered him to prevent him from firing another shot and police from nearby police post were called. The police forcibly took the pistol from him and took him towards the police post but before entering the gate of the police post, the PSO punched the complainant’s face, injuring his nose. The footage of the incident was recorded on the CCTV cameras installed on the High Court premises.
The accused contended that no injury suffered by the complainant had been declared to be dangerous to life and the offence under Section 109(1) of the BNS had been wrongly invoked by the police. He further stated that 10 rounds in 9 mm standard service pistol were found to be complete and there was no question of firing at the complainant. He also stated that there was an exchange of hot words between the parties and even he had suffered injuries.
While the accused and complainant were heard by the Court, the accused had tendered an unconditional apology to the complainant. He stated that the occurrence had taken place in the heat of the moment. He apologized to the complainant and stated that in future, he will never approach the complainant, nor will he cause any harm to him. Even an affidavit was filed by the accused in this regard and the same was also taken on record.
Analysis and Decision
The Court opined that the allegations leveled by the complainant against the accused were serious in nature and being a member of disciplined force, he was also expected to behave in a responsible manner. Further, the Court stated that the accused was on security duty before this Court and he should have acted in a more disciplined and careful manner.
Considering that the accused tendered an unconditional apology to the complainant in Court itself, the Court granted concession of anticipatory bail taking a lenient view of the matter. The Court allowed the petition and subjected the accused to the conditions provided under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
[ASI Dilbag Singh v. State (UT of Chandigarh), CRM-M No. 46352 of 2025(O&M), decided on 22-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Samay Singh Sandhawalia, Advocate
For the Respondent: Manish Bansal, P.P. for U.T., Chandigarh.
