IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: October 06, 2025 Fardeen ….Petitioner versus State of Haryana ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Abhinav Sood Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vishal Singh, AAG Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.838 dated 07.11.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115, 190, 191(3), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) (Sections 117(2) and 140(4) of the BNS added lateron), registered at Police Station Camp Palwal, Tehsil and District Palwal.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that on 06.11.2024, at about 09:30 PM, the complainant, namely, Yasin along with his son Sharukh, Gauri @ Gourav, Manoj, and Hemant went to Bakshi Farm, Shyam Nagar, Palwal to attend a marriage function. At that time, the accused persons arrived at the spot and attacked them with lathis, dandas, and hammers. It is further alleged that the accused persons kidnapped the complainant, took him from Ram Nagar to Mohan Nagar, to the office of Saleem, where they assaulted him. Thereafter, he was thrown on the road and threatened not to interfere with them in the future. On the basis of these allegations, an FIR was registered under Sections 190, 191(3), 115(2), and 351(3) of the BNS. Subsequently, after receiving the medical record of the injured, Section 117(2) BNS was added.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has no relation whatsoever with the commission of the offence in question. Learned counsel has iterated that neither any specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner nor any motive has come forth to show allege involvement of the petitioner in committing the offence in question. Learned counsel submits that earlier, the petitioner was released on bail by the police, but later on, after addition of offence under Section 140(4) of the BNS, the bail of the petitioner was cancelled. Learned counsel has also iterated that there is nothing to be recovered from the petitioner, & he is ready and willing to join investigation. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, grant of the instant petition is prayed for.

4. On advance service of copy of petition, learned State counsel appears and has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner along with his accused inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant to the extent that he received fractures on his hand, leg and chest. Learned counsel has argued that investigation in the present case is still under way and the petitioner is yet to be arrested. Given these circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable. It is therefore, submitted that the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.

6. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Kishor Vishwasrao Patil vs. Deepak Yashwant Patil and another passed in SLP(Crl) No.1125-2022, relevant whereof reads as under:

“74. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the investigation intended to secure several purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to interrogate the ac