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.84 dated 05.11.2025 registered under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Section 118(2) of the BNS added later on), at Police Station Sadar Budhlada, District Mansa.

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, due to some property dispute.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He argued that the alleged occurrence took place on 03.11.2025 but the FIR in question was registered on 05.11.2025 i.e. after an unexplained delay of 02 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 the injury attributed to the present petitioner is simple in nature and on the non-vital part of the body of the complainant i.e. on his right bicep. He further submitted that there is some land dispute going on between the complainant and his wife and the petitioner has no connection with either the complainant or his land. He further argued that Section 118(2) of BNS has been added, vide DDR No.27 dated 12.12.2025, only to make the offence graver. 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 Sessions Judge, Mansa, vide order dated 24.11.2025.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has already filed the status report in the matter and while referring to the same, he 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 had formed an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, attacked the complainant and caused serious injuries to him. He further argued that it was the petitioner who had inflicted injuries on both legs of the complainant (injuries No.2 and 5), which have been declared grievous in nature and offence under Section 118(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. Learned counsel for the complainant adopts the submissions made by learned State counsel and while opposing the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner has played an active role in the crime and, thus, does not deserve the concession of bail.

7. Heard.

8. In the present case, the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and the allegations against him are serious in nature. He is alleged to have inflicted grievous injuries upon the complainant and offence under Section 118(2) of BNS has been specifically attributed to him. 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 protection, at this stage. Granting anticipatory bail w