JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J. 

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.0676 dated 08.10.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115, 118(1), 190, 191(2), 351(3) of the BNS, 2023 (corresponding Sections 323, 324, 149, 147, 506 of IPC) [Sections 109(1) and 118(2) of the BNS, 2023 (corresponding Sections 307 and 226 of IPC added later on), at Police Station HTM Hisar, District Hisar.

2. The gravamen of allegations against the petitioner is that on 06.10.2025, at around 9:30 PM, complainant (Gaurav), along with his friends Rohit and Rahul, was sitting at a tea stall in the New Vegetable Market, Hisar, near Shed No.1. At that time, 7–8 individuals arrived on motorcycles and an auto-rickshaw. Among them were Mohit, Naseeb, Rohit, Chand, Parveen (petitioner herein), Natti, Kalu, Joni, Kachu, Mohit, Sundu, Mandi, Govind, Rahul, Sachin, Baba, Tiranga, Jugan, Vijay @ Katta, Kalu, and Dhoni. All the accused were armed with deadly weapons and began assaulting them. Chand stabbed Gaurav on his left thigh with a knife. Rohit (son of Naseeb) struck him on the back with a gandasi, while Naseeb inflicted a sword blow on his back. The accused collectively attacked both Gaurav and Rohit, whereas Rahul managed to escape from the scene. They were later rescued by nearby shopkeepers.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further iterated that the occurrence in question happened on 06.10.2025, whereas, the FIR was registered on 08.10.2025, thus, there is a delay of 02 days in report the occurrence to the police. Learned counsel has argued that injured – Rohit was declared as LAMA (Left Against Medial Advice) by the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Hisar and was admitted in the private hospital, and from the said hospital, on 10.10.2025, he disclosed the name of the petitioner to be a person who caused injury to him. Learned counsel has further argued that even the injured – Rohit has no clean antecedents and is involved in two criminal cases.

3.1. Learned counsel has asserted that the police have not conducted a fair and impartial investigation and the inquiry conducted so far is not only incomplete, but also tainted with bias. Learned counsel has further asserted that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Moreover, the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4. Learned State counsel, while raising submissions in tandem with the status report by way of an affidavit dated 11.3.2026, which is already on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. The relevant of the said reply reads as under:

“6. Specific role of the petitioner: - That the petitioner Parveen has been specifically named and attributed a distinct role in the occurrence. During investigation, co-accused Sunil @ Chanda @ Sundu and Sachin, in their respective disclosure statements, categorically disclosed that the petitioner Parveen inflicted a blow with a gandasi on the head of injured Rohit during the assault. The said act is directly connected with the injuries sustained by the victim and forms an integral part of the violent attack carried out by the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention. The role of the petitioner is therefore specific and active in nature