IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Balram ……Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Haryana ……Respondent(s)

Decided on : 30.01.2026 Date of uploading: 30.01.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG, Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition is the second attempt filed 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 petitioner in case bearing FIR No.185 dated 11.08.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 190, 191(3), 115(2), 324(2), 333, 351(3), 238(c) of BNS 2023 and Section 25(1-B), (a) of the Arms Act, at Police Station Sadar Palwal, District Palwal.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that the present FIR was registered at the instance of the registered complainant Rajesh son of Late Girraj, who in his complaint had stated that on 10.08.2025 at about 4:20 PM, the petitioner (herein) alongwith Ravinder son of Santram, Manish (brother-in-law of Ravinder), along with three other persons, came to his house in a white-coloured Baleno car and forcibly entered the house. He further stated that immediately upon entering the house, the petitioner (herein) attacked his younger brother, Rajender, with a knife; however, they managed to foil the said attack by using a blanket. He further stated that thereafter Balram @ Babli attempted to fire a country-made pistol, but the firearm did not discharge, due to which they managed to save themselves. He stated that thereafter, out of fear for their lives, they confined themselves in a room and bolted the door from inside. He further stated that the accused persons demolished the windowpanes of the room and attempted to break the window grills and doors by using an axe and a farsa, while loudly threatening that they would kill them. He further stated that on account of the alarm raised by the women and children of the house and upon the arrival of villagers at the spot, the accused persons after causing injuries to the women and children fled away from the spot in their vehicle. Upon these set of allegations, the present FIR came to be registered against the accused persons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case at the behest of the complainant in connivance with the police just to satisfy his personal vendetta. He has contended that the petitioner and his mother has made several complaints to the police, but no action has been taken on the same. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that prior to the incident in question on 03.06.2025, the petitioner was badly beaten by the complainant and he remained admitted in hospital. The copy of the MLR has also been appended as Annexure P-4. It is further submitted that the similarly situated co-accused, namely Sumit, has been granted the concession of regular bail by the learned Sessions Court and on this ground of parity as well, the petitioner is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel asserts that the in the instant case, the FIR fails to include material facts, which further raised questions about its credibility and fairness. 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. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be granted the concession of the anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel, has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, contending that the allegations levelled against the petitioner