Latest JudgementBharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

ASI Dilbagh Singh v. State of Union Territory, Chandigarh, 2025

It was asserted that law enforcement officers must be held to higher standards, but the reformative approach can be adopted in exceptional situations.

Punjab and Haryana High Court·26 August 2025
ASI Dilbagh Singh v. State of Union Territory, Chandigarh, 2025
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023
Share:

Judgement Details

Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Date of Decision

26 August 2025

Judges

Justice N.S. Shekhawat

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

  • The petitioner, ASI Dilbagh Singh, was serving as the Personal Security Officer (PSO) of a sitting High Court judge.

  • He was accused of attempting to open fire at the Chief Court Officer, Dalvinder Singh, during a heated altercation.

  • Although he allegedly pulled out his service pistol, no bullet was fired.

  • The complainant claimed the act amounted to an attempt to shoot, but the pistol did not discharge.

  • ASI Dilbagh Singh later tendered an unconditional apology in court.

Issues

  1. Whether the pre-arrest bail should be granted despite the seriousness of the allegations?

  2. Whether Section 109(1) of BNS was rightly invoked given the absence of actual firing?

  3. Whether the petitioner's apology and conduct warranted leniency from the Court?

Held

  • The Pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner.

  • The petitioner shall not approach or cause harm to the complainant or his family.

  • The affidavit of apology was accepted and taken on record.

  • The Court reminded that officers in security and police forces must uphold discipline at all times.

Analysis

  • The Court balanced disciplinary expectations from security personnel with mitigating factors like the absence of actual firing, and the apology.

  • It is recognized that while the accusation is serious, the evidence did not establish actual firing or dangerous injury.

  • It was asserted that law enforcement officers must be held to higher standards, but the reformative approach can be adopted in exceptional situations.

  • It was reiterated that Section 109(1) BNS should not be mechanically applied without clear intent or action toward abetment or attempt.