IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 06.11.2025 Saleem ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Addl.AG, Haryana.

*****

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.838 dated 07.11.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 190, 191(3), 351(3) of the BNS, 2023 (Sections 117(2) and 140(4) of the BNS, 2023 added later on), at Police Station Camp Palwal, District Palwal.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that on 06.11.2024, at about 9:30 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 was 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) and 140(4) BNS was added.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accused is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has no role whatsoever with the alleged commission of offence. 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 asserts that the in the instant case, the FIR fails to include material facts, which further raised questions about its credibility and fairness. Moreover, the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Furthermore, nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and he is ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be granted the concession of the anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra, the learned State Counsel opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence is of a serious nature. The investigation with respect to the petitioner is still ongoing. As per the investigation, the petitioner alongwith his co-accused attacked upon the complainant party and gave injuries to the complainant Yasin, Sharukh & Gaurav and took the complainant to Mohan Nagar and inflicted injuries upon his person, whereby the complainant has received fractures on his hand, leg and chest. Learned State counsel has iterated that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative for the purpose of effective and fair investigation and to unearth the case of the prosecution. According to learned State counsel, in case the petitioner is granted the concession of pre-

arrest, at this stage, it may impede the ongoing investigation.

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 proc