IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:13.01.2026 Jyoti ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Shubham Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Eklavya Darshi, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Krishan Singh Dadwal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

1. Seeking for the benefit of anticipatory bail, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case arising out of FIR No.60 dated 26.04.2025, under Sections 109, 333, 115(2), 3(5) of BNS [Section 103 was added later on vide G.D. No. 28 dated 28.04.2025], Police StationAdampur, District Jalandhar.

2. Briefly stating the fact emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Sanjeev Kumar’ son of ‘Jagdish Chand’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above named complainant that he and his brother ‘Manoj Kumar’ lived in adjoining house, and that on 17.04.2025 at about 6.45 P.M he heard commotion in the house of his brother. As per complainant, out of curiosity when he went to the house of his brother ‘Manoj Kumar’, he found that ‘Rajan Hampal’, ‘Sunny Tailor’ and ‘Jyoti’ had entered into the house of his brother and were thrashing him brutally. According to complainant, the above named assailants dragged his brother out of his home and inflicted multiple injuries on his person by punching, slapping and killing him. It was further stated by the complainant that when assailants ‘Rajan’ pushed his brother, his brother fell down on the ground and his head struck against the earthen pot.

3. In addition to above, the complainant has also stated that when he tried to rescue his brother he, too, came under attack and the assailant hurled abuses to him while extending the threat to kill.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of above mentioned statement formal FIR of this case, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 109, 333, 115(2), 3(5) of BNS [Section 103 was added later on vide G.D. No.28 dated 28.04.2025], was lodged and the investigation taken up.

5. Heard.

6. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and that she has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the contents of the FIR itself makes it clear that the petitioner was not carrying any weapon at the time of commission of offence and that the CCTV footage being relied upon by the prosecution in itself shows that the petitioner was not present on the spot at the time of occurrence.

7. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also highlighted the fact that there is delay of 9 days in reporting the matter to the police, and that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, and therefore, she is entitled for the benefit of anticipatory bail.

8. Per contra, the learned State counsel being assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the nature of offence allegedly committed by the petitioner is grievous in nature as the injuries inflicted on the person of ‘Manoj Kumar’, the brother of the complainant, were apparently responsible for his death. As per learned State counsel the presence of petitioner at the time of commission of offence, and her active participation, can be ascertained from the CCTV footage pertaining to the incident in question. As per learned State counsel, in order to fix the responsibility of petitioner in the commission of offence and for collection of evidence, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of bail.

9. The record has been perused carefully.

10. A perusal of the record shows that there are several factors which are required to be taken into consideration at this stage. They are:-

i) that the allegat