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.152 dated 22.07.2025 registered under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(1), 191(3), 190, 61(2) and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 117(2) and 118(1) of the BNS added later on vide DDR No.31 dated 25.08.2025), at Police Station Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner along with other co-accused, armed with deadly weapons, attacked the complainant and caused injuries to him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He argued that the alleged occurrence took place on 10.07.2025 but the FIR in question was registered on 22.07.2025 i.e. after an unexplained delay of 12 days, casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. He further argued that if the contents of the FIR are taken to be true, even then no specific role has been attributed to the present petitioner. He further argued that Section 117(2) and 118(1) of BNS has been added, vide DDR No.31 dated 25.08.2025, only to make the offence graver that too after a delay of more than one month from the date of registration of the FIR. He further argued that all the injuries mentioned by the complainant has been stated to be on the non-vital part of the complainant. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

4. After registration of the FIR, investigation has been initiated and is under way. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide order dated 10.11.2025.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report in the matter, which is taken on record and while referring to the same, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He argued that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR. He further argued that the petitioner along with other co-accused, who were armed with deadly weapons, had formed an unlawful assembly and attacked the complainant and caused serious injuries to him. He further argued that the petitioner was the main accused who inflicted injury with khanda on the right side of the head of the complainant, which has been declared grievous in nature and offence under Section 117(2) of the BNS has been specifically attributed to the present petitioner. He further submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for fair and proper investigation in the matter, to recover the weapon of offence and identification and arrest of co-accused. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. Heard.

7. In the present case, the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and the allegations against him are serious in nature. The petitioner along with other co-accused had formed an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, attacked the complainant and caused serious injuries to him. He is alleged to have inflicted injury with khanda on the right side of the head of the complainant, which has been declared grievous in nature and as such, offence under Section 117(2) of the BNS has been specifically attributed to the present petitioner. The weapon of offence is yet to be recovered. This Court is sanguine of the fact that while considering the petition for anticipatory bail, it is required to consider the overall nature of offence and accusation against the accused, the manner of occurrence, the gravity of offence and the potential impact of granting pre-arrest protect