IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

204 CRM-M-3388-2026 VIJAYPAL ....PETITIONER V/s STATE OF HARYANA ....RESPONDENT Date of decision: 27.02.2026 Date of uploading: 27.02.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Senior DAG, Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL , J .

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.369 dated 05.12.2025, registered at Police Station IMT Rohtak, District Rohtak, initially under Sections 110, 115, 126, 190, 191(3), 324(4), 351(3) of BNS (erstwhile Sections 308, 321, 339, 148, 149, 427, 506 IPC), which during the course of investigation were later modified to include Sections 110, 115(2), 126(2), 191(3), 190, 324(4), 351(3) and 117(2) of BNS.

2. On 22.01.2026, the following order was passed:-

1. First Petition under Section 482 BNSS filed by the petitioner–accused Vijay Pal under Section 482 BNSS seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.369 dated 05.12.2025, registered at Police Station IMT Rohtak, District Rohtak, initially under Sections 110, 115, 126, 190, 191(3), 324(4), 351(3) of BNS (erstwhile Sections 308, 321, 339, 148, 149, 427, 506 IPC), which during the course of investigation were later modified to include Sections 110, 115(2), 126(2), 191(3), 190, 324(4), 351(3)

and 117(2) of BNS.

2. As per the prosecution case, the FIR was registered on the complaint of Rahul, alleging that he had a matrimonial dispute with his wife Kirti. On 05.12.2025, while he was present at the canteen of Mastnath University, Rohtak, his wife allegedly informed her family members about his location. It is alleged that thereafter, the complainant was allegedly assaulted by several persons, including his brother-in-law Ajay and maternal uncle Sandeep @ Maruti along with other unknown persons. The complainant alleged that he was beaten with lathis/dandas and iron rod, his car was damaged and threats were extended to kill him. The incident allegedly continued at another location where further assault and damage to vehicles was caused. On the basis of the said allegations, the present FIR came to be registered. The petitioner was not named in the FIR and his name surfaced subsequently during investigation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not been specifically named in the FIR. It is submitted that the dispute is essentially matrimonial in nature between the complainant and his wife and that the principal role has been attributed to the complainant’s in-laws, namely Ajay and Sandeep @ Maruti, who have already been arrested. It is further contended that no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner, that most of the injuries suffered by the complainant are simple in nature and only one injury has been declared grievous, leading to addition of Section 117(2) of BNS. The petitioner is stated to be a law-abiding citizen, having no criminal antecedents, and undertakes to join investigation and abide by any condition imposed by this Court.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and opposes the grant of anticipatory bail. He, assisted by counsel for the complainant Mr. Virender Soni, Advocate, who has filed Memo of Appearance, has opposed the bail application on the ground that the offence is serious in nature and involves an allegation of attempt to commit culpable homicide. It is submitted that as per the prosecution version, the petitioner is visible in the CCTV footage armed with a lathi/danda, that injuries caused are grievous in nature and that custodial interrogation is required for recovery of the weapon of offence. It is further argued that the lower court has rightly declined anticipatory bail of the petitioner keeping in view the gravity o