IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 13.02.2026 Anuj ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. Gagandeep Sanwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana.

*****

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.193 dated 12.05.2025 registered under Sections 103(1), 61 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25/54/49 of the Arms Act, at Police Station City Gohana, District Sonepat.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that due to some old enmity, the petitioner along with other co-accused, brutally attacked and caused injuries to one Ajay (brother of the complainant), who subsequently succumbed to his injuries. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He argued that the petitioner was neither named in the FIR, nor has any concern with the said offence. He further argued that the petitioner was not even present at the spot on the alleged date of incident. It has also been contended that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by one co-accused Vishal. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of the co-accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible. He further argued that even if the prosecution story is believed to be true, then also no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner and the allegation of firing is upon other co-accused. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case and no recovery is to be effected 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 her arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, vide order dated

03.11.2025.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel, while referring to the status report, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He argued that the petitioner was specifically named in the disclosure statement of co-accused Vishal and as per his disclosure statement, the petitioner along with other co-accused hatched criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased and as such, the petitioner has actively participated in the crime. He further argued that involvement of the petitioner is duly established from the call detail records of the accused persons showing that the petitioner was in constant touch with co- accused Vishal at the time of commission of offence. He further argued that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required as weapon used in the crime is yet to be recovered and also to unearth the modus operandi. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. Heard.

7. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and he is specifically named in the disclosure statement of co-accused Vishal and as per the disclosure statement, the petitioner along with other co-accused hatched criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased and as such, actively participated in the crime. As per the status report filed by the State, the petitioner was in constant touch with co- accused Vishal, at the time of commission of offence. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to unearth the modus