Rajeev Kumar @ Rinkle vs State of Punjab

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(P&H) 69

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Rajeev Kumar @ Rinkle – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Amritpal Singh, DAG, Punjab.
For the Complainant : Mr. Munish Puri, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.51 dated 04.03.2026 registered under Sections 109, 194(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 351(2), and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Sujanpur, District Pathankot.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that two groups were quarreling with each other. Both the parties were rioting in a public place and attacked each other with an intention to kill. The petitioner was a member of one of the group. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He argued that the petitioner was named in the FIR only on the basis of suspicion without any concrete evidence. He further argued that if the contents of the FIR are taken to be true, even then no specific role/injury has been attributed to the present petitioner and in fact, it is a case of no injury. He further argued that Section 109 of BNS has been added, only to mak

Click Here to Read the rest of this document