CRM-M-20069 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 106 JAIVEER STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present : SURYA P petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. dated 30.12.2025 109(1), 190, 191(2), Sanhita, 2023 District Fatehabad 2. ‘Kuldeep stated by the above 20069-2026 (O&M) 8587 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM DATE OF DECISION JAIVEER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Rajesh Nain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (oral) This petition for pre-arrest bail is petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 30.12.2025, for the commission of of 109(1), 190, 191(2), 331(6), 324(5), 351 Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 of Arms Act Fatehabad. The abovementioned FIR came into being Singh’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-20069-2026 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 10.04.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana. arrest bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.270 , for the commission of offence punishable under Section 331(6), 324(5), 351(3), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Bhattu Kalan FIR came into being at the instance of hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was named complainant that in the intervening night of .2026 .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 270 fence punishable under Sections Bharatiya Nyaya Bhattu Kalan, at the instance of hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was in the intervening night of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.10 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20069 29th/30th December, 2025, when he was sleeping at his home with his family, at about 01:30 ‘Manjeet’, ‘Jaibir Loyal’ persons, armed with various weapons, arrived at his house, According to complainant, they forcibly with the help of Bolero windowpane, tractor and one motorcycle. As per complainant, out of fear when he the terrace, he was spotted by ‘Shamsher Singh’ and ‘Manjeet’ out pistols from their waistbands and fired 4 complainant has further alleged that injury and then he along with his family fled towards the field, but he was followed by the assailants. uncle had arrived at the spot and when he tried to stop the assailants, he, too, came under attack. 3. statement 4. 5. behalf of respondent dispensed with. However, he has opposed the instant petition. 6. 20069-2026 (O&M) 8587 December, 2025, when he was sleeping at his home with his family, at about 01:30-02:00 am, ‘Shamsher ‘Manjeet’, ‘Jaibir Loyal’, ‘Ajay Kukna’, ‘Naresh @ persons, armed with various weapons, arrived at his house, According to complainant, they forcibly with the help of Bolero vehicle, entered windowpane, and damaged the vehicles of the complainant tractor and one motorcycle. As per complainant, out of fear when he terrace, he was spotted by ‘Shamsher Singh’ and ‘Manjeet’ out pistols from their waistbands and fired 4 complainant has further alleged that he somehow escaped from any bullet injury and then he along with his family fled towards the field, but he was followed by the assailants. It was also alleged by the complainant that his uncle had arrived at the spot and when he tried to stop the assailants, he, too, came under attack. It is the case of the prosecution that statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation Notice of motion. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. No formal reply has been filed by the learned State Counsel. However, he has opposed the instant petition. Heard. 2 December, 2025, when he was sleeping at his home with his family, 02:00 am, ‘Shamsher @Sheri’, ‘Yogesh @Manda’, , ‘Ajay Kukna’, ‘Naresh @Neshi’ and 5-6 other persons, armed with various weapons, arrived at his house, in two vehicles According to complainant, they forcibly broke open the gate of the house entered the house, smashed s of the complainant, i.e. one car, one tractor and one motorcycle. As per complainant, out of fear when he went terrace, he was spotted by ‘Shamsher Singh’ and ‘Manjeet’, who took out pistols from their waistbands and fired 4-5 gunshots at him. The somehow escaped from any bullet injury and then he along with his family fled towards the field, but he was It was also alleged by the complainant that his uncle had arrived at the spot and when he tried to stop the assailants, he, too, It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned , formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana appears on State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby has been filed by the learned State Counsel. However, he has opposed the instant petition. December, 2025, when he was sleeping at his home with his family, Manda’, 6 other in two vehicles. the gate of the house , smashed the , i.e. one car, one went to , who took him. The somehow escaped from any bullet injury and then he along with his family fled towards the field, but he was It was also alleged by the complainant that his uncle had arrived at the spot and when he tried to stop the assailants, he, too, in view of abovementioned taken up. appears on State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby has been filed by the learned State Counsel. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.10 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20069 7. petitioner does not figure in the FIR, and that the present case is a no injury case. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that he is innocent. 8. abovementioned arguments. According to petitioner does not have clean antecedents, as he is facing prosecution in nine other criminal cases. As per learned State Counsel, in the FIR, there are specific allegations against the petitioner that he had fired gunshot upon uncle of the complainant. It has been contended that the presence of petitioner stands incident was recorded in a CCTV camera. 9. 10. clear that a group of assailants armed with various deadly weapons had launched an attack upon the complainant, house. The assailants not but also attempted his uncle, 11. gravity of incident. Otherwise also weapon, which was allegedly used by the petitioner important piece of evidence to link the petitioner with the commission of 20069-2026 (O&M) 8587 It has been contended on behalf of petitioner does not figure in the FIR, and that the present case is a no injury . It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that he is innocent. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to petitioner does not have clean antecedents, as he is facing prosecution in nine other criminal cases. As per learned State Counsel, in the FIR, there are specific allegations against the petitioner that he had fired gunshot upon uncle of the complainant. It has been contended that the presence of petitioner stands verified from the CCTV footage as the incident was recorded in a CCTV camera. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that the contents of FIR itself make that a group of assailants armed with various deadly weapons had launched an attack upon the complainant, . The assailants not not only vandalized all the veh attempted to kill two persons, firstly the complainant and secondly , by resorting to indiscriminate firing. The abovementioned facts and circumstances gravity of incident. Otherwise also in the weapon, which was allegedly used by the petitioner important piece of evidence to link the petitioner with the commission of 3 on behalf of petitioner that name of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR, and that the present case is a no injury . It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that he is The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, the petitioner does not have clean antecedents, as he is facing prosecution in nine other criminal cases. As per learned State Counsel, in the FIR, there are specific allegations against the petitioner that he had fired gunshot upon uncle of the complainant. It has been contended by learned State Counsel verified from the CCTV footage as the incident was recorded in a CCTV camera. The record has been perused carefully. record shows that the contents of FIR itself make that a group of assailants armed with various deadly weapons had launched an attack upon the complainant, while he was sleeping inside his not only vandalized all the vehicles present there, to kill two persons, firstly the complainant and secondly indiscriminate firing. The abovementioned facts and circumstances speak about the in the present case, the recovery of weapon, which was allegedly used by the petitioner, is one of the most important piece of evidence to link the petitioner with the commission of name of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR, and that the present case is a no injury . It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that he is The learned State Counsel has controverted the learned State Counsel, the petitioner does not have clean antecedents, as he is facing prosecution in nine other criminal cases. As per learned State Counsel, in the FIR, there are specific allegations against the petitioner that he had fired gunshot upon the by learned State Counsel verified from the CCTV footage as the record shows that the contents of FIR itself make it that a group of assailants armed with various deadly weapons had was sleeping inside his icles present there, to kill two persons, firstly the complainant and secondly speak about the , the recovery of is one of the most important piece of evidence to link the petitioner with the commission of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.10 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20069 crime, and for that purpose, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is of utmost importance. 12. 12. settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule. Rather only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for the extraordinary remedy. 13. India in the case of Srikant Upadhyay SC 282, has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination anticipatory bail is a rule. 14. case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investi 15. Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave 20069-2026 (O&M) 8587 crime, and for that purpose, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is of st importance. As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule. Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for the extraordinary remedy. With regard to such situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination anticipatory bail is a rule. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation. Similarly, in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave 4 crime, and for that purpose, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is of As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect, while exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as per law the abovesaid benefit should be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for With regard to such situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of gation. Similarly, in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave crime, and for that purpose, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is of As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is while exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as per law the abovesaid benefit should be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for With regard to such situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been , be said that The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of Similarly, in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.10 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20069 Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. 16. 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that: 17. custodial interrogation of the present case, if such right is den likely to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation proper headway requisite evidence. 20069-2026 (O&M) 8587 Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. In the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that: (i) The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only. (ii) In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. (iii) Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to t police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be exercised. It shall not be out of place to mention here that right of custodial interrogation of the Investigating Agency is a valuable right the present case, if such right is denied to the Investigating likely to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation proper headway and the Investigating Agency requisite evidence. 5 Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the Hon'ble that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. In the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that:- The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to t police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can er under Section 438 should not be It shall not be out of place to mention here that right of ting Agency is a valuable right, and in ied to the Investigating Agency, it is likely to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation may not take a and the Investigating Agency may not be able to collect the Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the Hon'ble that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of In the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can er under Section 438 should not be It shall not be out of place to mention here that right of and in it is may not take a may not be able to collect the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.10 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20069 18. above-discussed circumstance jurisdiction hereby held Accordingly, the same is 19. shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the ca 20. application 10.04.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 20069-2026 (O&M) 8587 If the fact-situation of instant case discussed principles of law, it transpires that circumstance exists in this case, which may call for the jurisdiction, vested in this Court, for grant of anticipatory bail. hereby held that the present petition is devoid of merits Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the ca Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous. .2026 (SURYA PA Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 6 situation of instant case is analyzed in the light of , it transpires that no such extra-ordinary in this case, which may call for the exercise of for grant of anticipatory bail. Thus, it is is devoid of merits deserves dismissal dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending rendered infructuous. SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE :Yes/No : Yes/No ht of ordinary exercise of the it is dismissal. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove se. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.10 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document