IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.219 CRM-M-10802-2026 Decided on : 25.03.2026 Karan Kumar ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL ***

Present : Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG, Punjab ***

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL , J (ORAL)

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.0094 dated 14.11.2025, registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(3), 3(5) of BNS (Section 118(2) of BNS, 2023 added lateron), at Police Station Begowal, District Kapurthala.

2. Brief facts, as per the prosecution case, are that the petitioner alongwith co-accused armed with datar and baseball bat caused injuries on the person of complainant and also threatened to kill him. Hence the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner has no concern with the said offence and the allegations levelled against him are false. Learned counsel contends that no specific role as well as injury has been attributed to the petitioner. He further contends that the present FIR is a counterblast of FIR No.125 dated 08.12.2021, registered under Sections 354, 354-D, 506 IPC, against the complainant by the mother of the petitioner. It is further contended that there is nothing on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner, and his custodial interrogation is not required. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Agency and shall fully cooperate with the investigation. On these grounds, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed.

4. Notice of motion.

5. On asking of the Court, Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature, the injuries attributed to him have been declared as grievous in nature and Section 118(2) of BNS, 2023 has been specifically attributed to him. Thus, he does not deserve any concession from this Court.

6. Heard.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record, it is evident that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature; he alongwith co-accused caused grievous injuries on the person of complainant and Section 118(2) of BNS, 2023 has been specifically attributed to him. The investigation prima facie indicates involvement of petitioner in the crime and there is requirement of deeper probe. 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 with such allegations, at this preliminary stage, would not be justified as it may affect the course of fair investigation and undermine and seriousness of the alleged act. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation in the matter.

8. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It would b