IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CRM-M-8326-2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 13.02.2026 Rohit ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Neeraj Sharma Shandilya, Advocate for the petitioner.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

1. This is the first petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 20 dated 19.01.2026, registered under Sections 115, 190, 331(6), 324(4), 351(3), 191(3) B.N.S. (Section 333 added later), at Police Station Indri, District Karnal, Haryana.

2. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 18.01.2026 a complaint along with MLR was received alleging that on the same day at about 9:15 PM, when the complainant and his family were sleeping in their house, 10–15 boys came to their house on 4–5 motorcycles and forcibly entered by breaking open the door. It is alleged that the assailants were armed with sharp-edged weapons including swords, gandasis and dandas, and they attacked the complainant and his family members, including the female members of the household. The complainant specifically named Joginder, Sachin and Rohit as among the assailants and expressed apprehension of danger to their lives. On the basis of the said allegations, formal FIR No. 20 dated 19.01.2026 was registered under Sections 191(3), 190, 115(2), 331(6), 351(3) and 324(4) of the B.N.S. at Police Station Indri, District Karnal. During investigation, accused Joginder and Sachin were arrested on 02.02.2026. Subsequently, Section 331(6) BNS was deleted and Section 333 BNS was added. Apprehending his arrest in the said case, the present petitioner Rohit has approached this Court by way of the present petition seeking grant of anticipatory bail.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. It is submitted that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence and that his village is situated at a considerable distance from the alleged spot of incident. According to him, no act attributable to the petitioner amounts to house trespass or any other alleged offence and the provisions have been added illegally and arbitrarily to harass him.

4. It is further argued that the allegations in the FIR are highly exaggerated, improbable and based on a concocted version of the complainant. The petitioner submits that he has been roped in due to previous enmity and misuse of influence by the complainant. It is also contended that two co-accused, namely Sachin and Joginder, have already been granted regular bail by the learned trial Court and, therefore, the petitioner seeks parity.

5. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has clean antecedents, has never been convicted in any criminal case and has not been declared a proclaimed offender in the present case or in any other case. It is also contended that the earlier anticipatory bail application filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, was dismissed without proper appreciation of facts.

6. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to join the investigation as and when required and shall not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness, and therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. Notice of motion.

8. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the State of Haryana and opposes the present anticipatory bail application. Mr. Davneet Sangwan, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and has filed his vakalatnama.

9. Learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and the allegations ag