IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 30.10.2025 Patram @ Fatwa ……Appellant (s)

Versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Vikas Vashisth, Advocate &

Mr. Narender Kaajla, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Vakil Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.2, 3, 5 & 6.

None for respondent No.4.

*****

Sumeet Goel (Oral):

1. Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.234 dated 14.05.2025 registered for offences punishable under Section 115 of BNS 2023 and Section 3 (2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Section 238(c) of BNS 2023 added later on), at Police Station Sadar, District Bhiwani; the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

2. On 17.06.2025, the following order was passed:

“1. Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.234 dated 14.05.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Section 115 of BNSS Act and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act at Police Station Sadar Bhiwani, District Bhiwani, the petitioner has preferred this appeal under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail. 2. Counsel for the appellant inter alia submits that there is inordinate/unexplained delay of 06 days in lodging of FIR. Apart from blanket allegation, there is no specific overt act attributed to the appellant.

3. Notice of motion for 16.09.2025.

4. Ms. Aditi Girdhar, AAG, Haryana, who is present in Court accepts notice on behalf of the State.

5. In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on interim bail subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/Investigating Officer. As and when called, the appellant shall join the investigation. He shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023.”

3. Learned State counsel (on instructions from ASI Parlhad) has submitted that the appellant has joined investigation and his custodial interrogation is required for effecting the recovery of the wooden stick in question.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that allegations raised against the appellant are serious in nature and in case the appellant is extended the concession of anticipatory bail, there is all the likelihood that he may interfere with the investigation as also intimidate the witnesses and also the FIR-complainant.

5. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in Arvind Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2024(2) Law Herald 970. Accordingly, keeping in view the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially the factum of the appellant having joined investigation and cooperated therein except for alleged non-

recovery of the wooden stick in question, this Court is inclined to confirm the order dated 17.06.2025 granting anticipatory bail to the appellant, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS.

6. Ordered accordingly.

7. This order should not be treated as “blanket” order. It will not be read granting appellant indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence.

8. Liberty is reserved in favour of State/complainant to move for cancellation/recall of this order in case the appellant violates any condition stipulated under Section 482(2) of BNSS or upon showing any other sufficient cause.

9. Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

(SUMEET GOEL)

October 30, 2025 JUDGE

Naveen

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether Reportable : Yes/No