##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

224 (1) CRM-M-57453-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 30.10.2026 Harmohan Kumar @ Harmohan Gir ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent

2. CRM-M-57461 of 2026 (O&M)

Harjesh Kumar @ Harjesh Gir …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON Present:- Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner (s) (in both petitions).

Mr. Gorav Kathuria, DAG., Punjab.

Mr. Faryad S. Virk, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

NEERJA K. KALSON, J. (Oral)

1. Since both the petitions arise out of the same FIR and involve common questions of fact and law, they are being taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

2. Through the present petitions, the petitioners seek the concession of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in case FIR No. 282 dated 14.09.2026 (Annexure P- 1), registered under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109, 351, 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 323, 341, 307, 506, 148 and 149 IPC), at Police Station Sohana, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contend that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case on account of a longstanding civil dispute between the parties concerning landed property situated in Village Shiampur. It is submitted that the parties have been embroiled in previous litigation and the present FIR is a counterblast to the said dispute. It is further contended that the injuries specifically attributed to the petitioners have been declared simple in nature and, therefore, the ingredients of Section 109 BNS are not attracted. Learned counsel further submit that the petitioners have clean antecedents and are ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency. On these premises, prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that both the petitioners have been specifically named in the FIR and distinct roles have been attributed to them. Petitioner Harmohan Kumar alias Harmohan Gir is attributed an iron-rod blow on the head of complainant Daljit Puri, which struck the left side of his head, resulting in an injury for which he is stated to have received eight stitches. Petitioner Harjesh Kumar alias Harjesh Gir is attributed a lalkara, followed by an iron- rod blow directed towards the head of complainant Daljit Puri, which struck his left hand when he attempted to ward off the assault. The latter petitioner is further attributed a separate iron-rod blow on the head of injured Gagan Puri, near his left eye. It is submitted that complainant Daljit Puri sustained five injuries, one of which has been declared grievous in nature and the rest being simple, whereas injured Gagan Puri sustained one injury, which has been declared simple. Learned State counsel further submits that the weapons of offence are yet to be recovered and custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary for effecting recovery and conducting an effective investigation.

5. Pursuant to the order dated 06.10.2026, learned State counsel has filed a status report by way of affidavit of Harsimran Singh Bal, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, City-2, SAS Nagar (Mohali), in CRM-M- 57453-2026, which is taken on record. The said report, arising out of the common FIR, also places on record the medico-legal reports of both injured persons along with the subsequent medical opinions, which have been perused by this Court.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

7. A plain reading of Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which corresponds to Section 307 IPC, reveals that the gravamen of the offence lies in the i