IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 06.10.2025 Sunny @ Nishant ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Hardial Singh Batth, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been 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.0147 dated 16.06.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 117(2), 117(3), 3(5) of BNS, at Police Station City Rupnagar, District Rupnagar.

2. The gravamen of the FIR pertains to an incident wherein the complainant has alleged that he resides in a joint family house alongwith his father namely Rakesh Kumar, grandmother namely Rukmani and aunt namely Teesha, who resides there with her son namely Sunny @ Nishant (petitioner herein). The complainant alleged that the dispute arose over the use of a washing machine purchased by his father. As per the complainant accused Sunny @ Nishant (petitioner herein) assaulted his father on account of the fact that his father did not allow the petitioner to use the washing machine. It is further alleged that when the complainant reached the house after receiving a call from his father, he found the accused - petitioner namely Sunny @ Nishant standing along with his friends namely Shivam and Harry. Upon questioning them about the incident, the co-accused Shivam allegedly caught the complainant by his shirt while co-accused Harry handed a sword to accused Sunny @ Nishant (petitioner herein), who then attacked the complainant and caused injuries on his left leg, left arm, and left wrist. On these set of allegations, the instant FIR was registered and investigation ensued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner and the complainant are close relatives residing in the same ancestral house. According to learned counsel, the father of the petitioner has since expired and the family property was being owned and managed by the grandmother of the petitioner namely Smt. Rukmani. It has been further argued that the in order to avoid daily quarrels, the grandmother executed a written family settlement dated 11.01.2025 (copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure P-2 with the present petition), through which the ground floor of the property was allotted to the petitioner and his widowed mother while the first floor was given to the family of the complainant. Learned counsel has further submitted that no objection was ever raised to this arrangement during the lifetime of the grandmother and that after her demise, the complainant and his family started creating disputes in order to forcibly occupy the ground floor portion. It has been further contended that the present FIR is false and motivated and lodged only to harass the petitioner and his mother.

Furthermore, the alleged injuries are simple in nature which has been caused by a blunt weapon and are on non-vital parts of the body. Learned counsel asserts that the petitioner is an innocent who has been wrongfully accused of an offence he never committed. Moreover, the present FIR appears to be nothing more than a calculated attempt to harass and humiliate the petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, the grant of the instant petition is entreated for and the petitioner be granted the concession of the anticipatory bail.

4. Conversely, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed