IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sanjay ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Date of Decision: March 27, 2026 Date of Uploading: March 30, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Deepender Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Meyank Sarpal, Advocate and Mr. Veer Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Priyanka Sadar Thakur, Senior DAG Haryana.

Ms. Kashish, Advocate and Ms. Aakriti Mittal, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) (earlier Section 438 of the Cr. P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.211 dated 05.04.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115, 190, 191(2), 333 of BNS (Section 117(2) of BNS added later on), at Police Station HTM Hisar, District Hisar.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that complainant, namely, Bablu, alleged that on 03.04.2025, Surender, hatched a criminal conspiracy at his residence. At about 3:00 PM on the same day, six boys, armed with sticks and iron rods, arrived in two vehicles—one being a Scorpio bearing registration No.HR 51BK-3600 and the other a small white- colored vehicle. They attacked Rajesh Kumar (father of the complainant), with the intention to kill him while his father was present at his shop near the Community Centre, Mahavir Colony, Hisar. The complainant identified four of the assailants as Rohit, Ankur alias Santi, Rattan, and Harish. He stated that he does not know the names and addresses of the remaining two individuals. All the accused allegedly had assaulted father of the complainant with sticks and rods, causing multiple injuries, as a result of which his father fell on the road. Subsequently, Pawan (brother of the complainant) and mother (Murthi Devi) got Rajesh Kumar admitted to the Government Hospital, Hisar. The complainant further stated that he came to know about the incident through CCTV footage.

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 further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, and the FIR in question was registered after a delay of 36 hours. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has been nominated in this case, on the basis of disclosure of co-accused, namely, Pardeep @ Deepu, on 23.08.2025, which is not permissible in law, and even in the said disclosure, no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner is an Indian Army official and during his leave period, he has been falsely implicated just to cause him undue harassment and agony. Learned counsel has iterated that all the alleged injuries were caused by blunt weapon on non-vital part of the body of the injured. Learned counsel has also argued that co-accused of the petitioner have been granted the concession of regular bail by the trial Court.

3.1. Learned counsel asserts 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 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. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and, hence, no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel, while raising submissions in tandem with the st