IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH Sunil Kumar ….Petitioner versus State of Haryana ….Respondent Date of Decision: March 30, 2026 Date of Uploading: 01.04.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

Mr. Sankalp Gehlawat, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.35 dated 28.01.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 333, 331(8), 3(5), 117(2), 115(2) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station City Narnaul, District Narnaul.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the complainant, namely, Satish Kumar, stated that on 28.01.2026, he was proceeding from his house towards his plot. Upon reaching the said plot, he found his neighbor – Karambir, present there along with other persons, all of whom were armed with axes, lathis, and dandas. It is alleged that they collectively assaulted the complainant in a brutal manner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further iterated that there are material contradictions between the ocular version and medical evidence, as the complainant sustained five injuries, which, as per medical evidence, are blunt in nature. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and no specific role has been attributed to him. Learned counsel has further argued that

3.1. Learned counsel has submitted that vide order dated 13.02.2026, the petitioner has also been accorded concession of interim bail by this Court.

3.2. Learned counsel has asserted that the police have not conducted a fair and impartial investigation and the inquiry conducted so far is not only incomplete, but also tainted with bias. Learned counsel has further asserted that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. 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. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4. Learned State counsel has filed reply by way of an affidavit dated 23.03.2026, in the Court, which is taken on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. Learned State counsel has iterated that there are specific and direct allegations against the petitioner. The relevant of the said reply reads as under:

“9. That the petitioner has committed a serious offence as he alongwith co-accused Karamveer entered the plot of the complainant/injured Satish Kumar armed with axe and wooden danda and collectively assaulted him and caused multiple (5) injuries. As per opinion of the concerned doctor, injuries no.1 to 4 are grievous and injury no.5 is simple in nature and collectively all the injuries mentioned in the MR are dangerous to life. So, in view of the seriousness and gravity of the offences, the petitioner is not entitled to get anticipatory bail merely on the ground of false implication.”

On these submissions, dismissal of the present petition is entreated for.

4.1. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner along with his co-accused has given serious injuries to the injured. Learned counsel has further argued tha