IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Anmol Dhawan @ Maula ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Date of Decision: April 17, 2026 Date of Uploading: April 17, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Ms. Jasneet Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab.

*****

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’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.59 dated 19.03.2026, registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 3(5) of BNS (Sections 118(2) & (3) of BNS 2023 added later on), at Police Station Sadar, District Amritsar.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that the complainant-Ankush in his complaint moved to the police has alleged that is that on 17.03.2026 at about 5:30 PM, when he was standing on the roadside and talking to his friend Nitin, the petitioner (herein) armed with a datar & wearing an iron kara, alongwith the co-accused namely Sahil, armed with a knife, reached the spot. The complainant has further stated that on seeing them, his friend Nitin fled away. Thereafter, the co-accused of the petitioner inflicted a knife blow on the thigh of the complainant, while the petitioner gave a blow on the head of the complainant with the kara. Upon raising alarm by the complainant and passersby gathering, both the accused persons fled from the spot along with their respective weapons. In the said occurrence, the complainant sustained injuries in the occurrence and was taken to the hospital for treatment. Upon these set of allegations, the present FIR came to be registered against the accused persons.

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 in question. It is contended that there is a delay of two days in lodging the FIR. It is further argued that the grievous injury has been attributed to the co- accused and not to the present petitioner. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner is young man aged 20 years with no criminal antecedents and is ready to join the investigation.

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 has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioners is serious in nature. Learned State counsel has iterated that there are specific and direct allegations against the petitioner. As per the allegations, the petitioner was armed with datar and inflicted injury on the head of the complainant. It is further submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for recovery of the weapon used in the alleged offence. Given the severity of the offence, there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioner may abscond or tamper with the evidence, if he is enlarged on bail. Learned State counsel has iterated that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative for the purpose of effective and fair investigation and to unearth the case of the prosecution. On these submissions, dismissal of the present petition is e