JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J.

1. The present petition is the second attempt under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case bearing FIR No.38 dated 11.03.2015, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 342, 148, 149 of the IPC at Police Station Behal, District Bhiwani, Haryana.

2. Shorn of non-essential details, relevant factual matrix of the lis in hand reads thus:

(i) On 11.03.2015, the FIR in question came to be registered on the statement of Ashok Kumar, cousin of the deceased Manish Kumar, alleging that the deceased, namely Manish Kumar was brutally assaulted by multiple accused persons including the present petitioners, resulting in his death.

(ii) The allegations disclose a monetary dispute relating to an amount of Rs.4,80,000/- allegedly paid for procuring the employment which led to enmity and culminated in the alleged homicidal assault.

(iii) During the course of investigation, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Siwani, found no sufficient evidence at that stage against the present petitioners. Consequently, they were kept in Column No. 12, Sections 148 and 149 IPC were deleted and a challan was presented on 06.06.2015 only against accused Rajinder son of Mylal and Sunil son of Suresh.

(iv) Subsequently, on an application being filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Court below, vide its order dated 17.09.2015, summoned the present petitioners as additional accused.

(v) The application of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail before the Court below i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, was dismissed vide order dated 25.09.2015.

(vi) Thereafter, the petitioners had approached this Court by way of filing a petition for grant of anticipatory bail i.e. CRM-M-34185-2015, which was dismissed on 06.10.2015, without commenting on the merits.

The relevant part of the said order reads thus:-

“Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and after careful perusal of the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, petitioners have not been found entitled for pre-arrest bail.

It is a matter of record that petitioners were named in the FIR. Specific allegations have been levelled against all the three petitioners. This was the reason that the learned trial Court summoned the petitioners with the aid of Section 319 Cr.P.C. by passing the appropriate order dated 18.9.2015 (Annexure P-3).

In view of the above and without commenting anything further on merits of the case, lest it should prejudice the rights of either of the parties, no case for anticipatory bail has been made out.

Dismissed. ”

(vii) After the dismissal of the aforesaid anticipatory bail by this Court, the petitioners posed a challenge to the summoning order dated 17.09.2015 before this Court vide CRR-4093-2015, wherein the operation of the summoning order was stayed vide order dated 28.10.2015.

(viii) During the pendency of the revision petition, the trial against the charge-sheeted accused stands concluded on 24.01.2017, resulting in the acquittal of one accused i.e. Sunil and the conviction of other accused i.e. Rajinder, who was sentenced to life imprisonment on 25.01.2017.

(ix) On 01.12.2025, the revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise all the pleas before the Court below.

(x) The present petition, preferred on 15.12.2025, is stated to be the second petition for grant of anticipatory bail, founded upon the alleged subsequent developments.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has iterated that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated into the present FIR in question on account of previous enmity. Learned counsel has further iterated that during the course of investigation conducted by a senior police officer i.e. the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Siwani, no incriminating material or cog