The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has denied anticipatory bail to two petitioners accused of violent assault, ruling that the medical classification of injuries as "simple" does not automatically negate the applicability of an attempted murder charge under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Justice Neerja K. Kalson, while presiding over the matter, emphasized that the core of the offense lies in the intention or knowledge behind the act rather than the physical severity of the harm caused.

The case originated from FIR No. 282, registered on September 14, 2026, at Police Station Sohana, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), involving allegations under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including Section 109, which corresponds to Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners, Harmohan Kumar and Harjesh Kumar, had sought the court's protection from arrest, arguing that the criminal complaint was a retaliatory measure stemming from a long-standing civil property dispute in Village Shiampur. Their legal counsel contended that the injuries cited in the medical reports were predominantly simple and that the petitioners were willing to cooperate with the ongoing police investigation.

However, the State of Punjab, supported by the complainant, strongly opposed the bail pleas. The prosecution detailed the specific acts attributed to the accused, noting that Harmohan Kumar allegedly struck the complainant, Daljit Puri, on the head with an iron rod, requiring eight stitches. Simultaneously, Harjesh Kumar was accused of directing a separate iron-rod blow toward the complainant’s head, which struck his left hand while he attempted to protect himself, and an additional blow near the eye of another injured individual, Gagan Puri. The State underscored that one of the injuries sustained by the complainant, located at the base of his left thumb, was medically declared grievous, further complicating the petitioners' claims regarding the nature of the alleged assault.

In her detailed order, Justice Kalson articulated the legal distinction between the act of causing hurt and the overarching intent required to establish a charge of attempted murder under Section 109. The court observed, "The legislature has thus drawn a distinction between the commission of an act accompanied by the requisite intention or knowledge and the actual infliction of hurt. It follows that causing hurt is not an indispensable ingredient of the offence in its basic form, nor is it necessary that the injury, if caused, must invariably be grievous or life-threatening."

The court drew significant support from the Supreme Court’s recent interpretation in Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana , which affirmed that Section 109 BNS contemplates two separate limbs regarding punishment, but maintains a single standard for culpability based on the perpetrator’s intent or knowledge at the time of the incident. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petitioners' argument that the medical classification of injuries as "simple" should automatically mitigate the seriousness of the charge. The court further rejected the contention that the existence of a prior civil property dispute necessarily invalidated the criminal allegations, noting that such claims require substantive proof to be examined during the trial process rather than at the stage of anticipatory bail.

Regarding the requirements for a thorough investigation, the court prioritized the State’s stance on the necessity of custodial interrogation . The prosecution maintained that the weapons of offense—specifically the iron rods alleged to have been used—remain unrecovered. The court found this to be a critical factor, stating, "The recovery of the weapons allegedly used assumes relevance in the context of the investigation, and the requirement asserted by the investigating agency cannot be brushed aside merely on the petitioners' willingness to join the investigation."

The judicial review of the status report, filed by Harsimran Singh Bal, Deputy Superintendent of Police, City-2, SAS Nagar, further convinced the court that the individual roles attributed to the petitioners, combined with the specific nature of the weapons used and the vital body parts targeted, precluded the grant of discretionary relief. The court observed that the nature of the assault, as presented through medical evidence and photographs submitted by the complainant, provided sufficient grounds for the investigative agencies to seek custodial access to the accused.

While declining the bail applications, the court was careful to ensure that its observations remained restricted to the scope of the current bail proceedings. It clarified that its findings should not be interpreted as a final opinion on the merits of the case and that the trial court must proceed independently and uninfluenced by the observations made during the bail hearing.

As the matter stands, the investigation into the incident at Village Shiampur will continue with the petitioners facing the prospect of arrest as requested by the investigating agency. This ruling serves as a notable reinforcement of the principle that the threshold for establishing criminal intent in cases of attempted murder is not limited by the absence of severe physical trauma, placing a higher burden on defendants seeking pre-arrest protection in cases involving the use of dangerous weapons against vital bodily areas. The trial will proceed in the district courts, where the defense will have the opportunity to contest the allegations, including the impact of the prior civil disputes and the veracity of the medical findings presented by the prosecution.