IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 06.04.2026 Balraj Singh Sidhu ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. G.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG, Punjab.

None for the complainant.

*****

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.27 dated 02.02.2026 registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 3(5) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Doraha, Police District Khanna, Ludhiana.

2. Brief facts as per the case of the prosecution are that the petitioner along with co-accused, hatched criminal conspiracy and caused injuries to the complainant, due to some old enmity. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He argued that the alleged occurrence took place on 30.01.2026 but the FIR in question was registered on 02.02.2026 i.e. after an unexplained delay of 03 days, casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. He argued that the present FIR was registered by the complainant for the reason that the petitioner had deposed against him during an enquiry in FIR No.36 dated 23.03.2025 and through the present FIR, the complainant wants to pressurize the petitioner to resile from the statement already made by him. He argued that even if the prosecution version is believed to be true, then also no injury attributed to the present petitioner is stated to be grievous in nature. He further argued that Section 117(2) of BNS has been added by the prosecution, only to make the offence graver. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case and nothing is to be recovered from him. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

4. After registration of the FIR, investigation has been initiated and is under way. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated

17.02.2026.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report, which is taken on record and while referring to the same, he has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He argued that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR. He further argued that the petitioner along with co-accused, armed with deadly weapons, attacked the complainant and caused serious injuries to him. He submitted that the petitioner attacked the complainant with a kirch and wooden stump and the said injury has been declared grievous in nature. He further submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for fair and proper investigation in the matter, to recover the weapon of offence, for unfolding the complete facts of the occurrence and for ascertaining the role of the co- accused in the conspiracy behind the occurrence. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. Heard.

7. In the present case, the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and the allegations against him are specific and serious in nature. He is alleged to have inflicted grievous injuries upon the complainant due to previous enmity and specific injury with kirch and wooden stump are exclusively attributed to the present petitioner. The weapon of offence is yet to be recovered. This Court is sanguine of the fact that while considering the petition for anticipatory bail, it is required to consider the overall nature of offence and accusation against the accused, the manner of occurrence, the gravity of offence a