CRM-M-7945 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 113 TARSEM KUMAR AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. L.S. Sekhon, for the petitioner Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Rajesh Nain, for the complainant. ***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) 1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the petitioners seek anticipatory bail in case 190, 191(2), 115(2), 126, 333, 351(2), 324(4 Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station City Tohana, District Fatehabad. 2. On ordinate Bench 190, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred to as 'BNS' only, the FIR No.404 dated 11.12.2025, has been lodged in Police Station City Tohana, District Fatehabad. In the above 7945-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision: TARSEM KUMAR AND OTHERS Versus STATE OF HARYANA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. L.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Rajesh Nain, Advocate for the complainant. ***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the petitioners seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No.404 dated 11.12.2025, under Sections 190, 191(2), 115(2), 126, 333, 351(2), 324(4 Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station City Tohana, District Fatehabad. On 11.02.2026, the following order ordinate Bench of this Court: - “For the commission of offence punishable under Sections 190, 191(2), 115(2), 126, 333, 351(2), 324(4), 324(5) and 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred to as 'BNS' only, the FIR No.404 dated 11.12.2025, has been lodged in Police Station City Tohana, District Fatehabad. In the above IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-7945-2026 Date of decision: 30.04.2026 ….Petitioners ....Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the petitioners FIR No.404 dated 11.12.2025, under Sections 190, 191(2), 115(2), 126, 333, 351(2), 324(4), 324(5) and 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station City Tohana, District Fatehabad. following order was passed by the Co- For the commission of offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 126, 333, 351(2), 324(4), 324(5) and 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred to as 'BNS' only, the FIR No.404 dated 11.12.2025, has been lodged in Police Station City Tohana, District Fatehabad. In the above ….Petitioners ....Respondent Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the petitioners FIR No.404 dated 11.12.2025, under Sections ), 324(5) and 109 of Bharatiya - For the commission of offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 126, 333, 351(2), 324(4), 324(5) and 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred to as 'BNS' only, the FIR No.404 dated 11.12.2025, has been lodged in Police Station City Tohana, District Fatehabad. In the above GURPREET 2026.05.01 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-7945 mentio therefore, for the benefit of anticipatory bail they have approached this Court, by virtue of present petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagrik Surakhsa Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred a above mentioned FIR came into being at the instance of 'Sunil Kumar @ Seena', hereinafter being referred to as 'complainant' only. It has been alleged by the complainant that on 10. at about 10.00 P.M. he along with 'Manoj' was standing outside his shops at Ratia Road near Ravidas Dharamshala Tohana, when the co 'Parveen', 'Rajat', 'Rajesh @ Midda', 'Ankit', 'Ankush' and 'Abhishek sticks, came there. As per complainant, upon seeing them the complainant allegedly rushed to the roof of house of 'Tarsem' (petitioner herein), while 'Manoj' ran away through the street. It is further aforesaid weapons, reached the roof top, where 'Tarsem' (petitioner) was accompanying them, and inflicted injuries upon the head of complainant, left arm, both legs and other parts of the body with the alleged that petitioner No.1 had snatched the mobile phone of the complainant during the occurrence. Thereafter, it is alleged that the co injuries on hi reports shows that the complainant and 'Manoj' have sustained multiple injuries caused by blunt weapons. State, Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, respondent 7945-2026 2 mentioned case, the petitioners are apprehending arrest, and therefore, for the benefit of anticipatory bail they have approached this Court, by virtue of present petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagrik Surakhsa Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred as 'BNSS' only. 2. In nutshell, the facts emerging from record are that the above mentioned FIR came into being at the instance of 'Sunil Kumar @ Seena', hereinafter being referred to as 'complainant' only. It has been alleged by the complainant that on 10. at about 10.00 P.M. he along with 'Manoj' was standing outside his shops at Ratia Road near Ravidas Dharamshala Tohana, when the co-accused namely 'Santokh', 'Satyawan', 'Anoop', 'Parveen', 'Rajat', 'Rajesh @ Midda', 'Ankit', 'Ankush' and 'Abhishek', all armed with gandasi, sword, iron rods and wooden sticks, came there. As per complainant, upon seeing them the complainant allegedly rushed to the roof of house of 'Tarsem' (petitioner herein), while 'Manoj' ran away through the street. It is further alleged that all the aforesaid persons armed with the aforesaid weapons, reached the roof top, where 'Tarsem' (petitioner) was accompanying them, and inflicted injuries upon the head of complainant, left arm, both legs and other parts of the body with the help of sticks, gandasi and rods. It is also alleged that petitioner No.1 had snatched the mobile phone of the complainant during the occurrence. Thereafter, it is alleged that the co-accused also intercepted 'Manoj' in the street and caused injuries on his person. As per complainant, the medico reports shows that the complainant and 'Manoj' have sustained multiple injuries caused by blunt weapons. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana, appears on behalf of respondent-State, and waives service. ned case, the petitioners are apprehending arrest, and therefore, for the benefit of anticipatory bail they have approached this Court, by virtue of present petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagrik Surakhsa Sanhita, 2023, s 'BNSS' only. 2. In nutshell, the facts emerging from record are that the above mentioned FIR came into being at the instance of 'Sunil Kumar @ Seena', hereinafter being referred to as 'complainant' only. It has been alleged by the complainant that on 10.12.2025 at about 10.00 P.M. he along with 'Manoj' was standing outside his shops at Ratia Road near Ravidas Dharamshala Tohana, accused namely 'Santokh', 'Satyawan', 'Anoop', 'Parveen', 'Rajat', 'Rajesh @ Midda', 'Ankit', 'Ankush' and ', all armed with gandasi, sword, iron rods and wooden sticks, came there. As per complainant, upon seeing them the complainant allegedly rushed to the roof of house of 'Tarsem' (petitioner herein), while 'Manoj' ran away through the street. It that all the aforesaid persons armed with the aforesaid weapons, reached the roof top, where 'Tarsem' (petitioner) was accompanying them, and inflicted injuries upon the head of complainant, left arm, both legs and other parts of help of sticks, gandasi and rods. It is also alleged that petitioner No.1 had snatched the mobile phone of the complainant during the occurrence. Thereafter, it is alleged that accused also intercepted 'Manoj' in the street and caused s person. As per complainant, the medico-legal reports shows that the complainant and 'Manoj' have sustained multiple injuries caused by blunt weapons. 4. Since advance notice has already been served upon the DAG, Haryana, appears on behalf of State, and waives service. ned case, the petitioners are apprehending arrest, and therefore, for the benefit of anticipatory bail they have approached this Court, by virtue of present petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagrik Surakhsa Sanhita, 2023, 2. In nutshell, the facts emerging from record are that the above mentioned FIR came into being at the instance of 'Sunil Kumar @ Seena', hereinafter being referred to as 'complainant' 12.2025 at about 10.00 P.M. he along with 'Manoj' was standing outside his shops at Ratia Road near Ravidas Dharamshala Tohana, accused namely 'Santokh', 'Satyawan', 'Anoop', 'Parveen', 'Rajat', 'Rajesh @ Midda', 'Ankit', 'Ankush' and ', all armed with gandasi, sword, iron rods and wooden sticks, came there. As per complainant, upon seeing them the complainant allegedly rushed to the roof of house of 'Tarsem' (petitioner herein), while 'Manoj' ran away through the street. It that all the aforesaid persons armed with the aforesaid weapons, reached the roof top, where 'Tarsem' (petitioner) was accompanying them, and inflicted injuries upon the head of complainant, left arm, both legs and other parts of help of sticks, gandasi and rods. It is also alleged that petitioner No.1 had snatched the mobile phone of the complainant during the occurrence. Thereafter, it is alleged that accused also intercepted 'Manoj' in the street and caused legal reports shows that the complainant and 'Manoj' have sustained 4. Since advance notice has already been served upon the DAG, Haryana, appears on behalf of GURPREET 2026.05.01 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-7945 behalf of complainant and files Power of Attorney. The same be taken on record. factors which are required to be taken into consideration at this stage. Those factors are: The contents of the FIR nowhere reveals that an person of complainant/victim was caused by the petitioners; story set out by the prosecution the victim in his endeavour to escape from the impact of assault, launched upon him, ha entered into the house of petitioner and rushed to the roof top of the house of petitioner No.1. There is nothing on record to show that petitioners were one of the assailant, who were following the victims. Thus, prima facie the petitioners cannot be a mob allegedly having a common intention to commit the above mentioned offence; the petitioners, when victim entered the home of petitioner No.1 joined the mob and snatched the mobile However the CCTV footage nowhere supports the claim of the complainant to this effect; of above mentioned mobile phone has to take place the same can be facilitated by issuing a direction to t investigation; to be concluded in near future; likely to serve any purpose; 7945-2026 3 5. Mr. Rajesh Nain, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of complainant and files Power of Attorney. The same be taken on record. 6. Heard. 7. The record has been perused carefully. 8. A perusal of the record shows that there are several factors which are required to be taken into consideration at this stage. Those factors are:- i) that name of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR. The contents of the FIR nowhere reveals that an person of complainant/victim was caused by the petitioners; ii) that the petitioners have clean antecedents; story set out by the prosecution the victim in his endeavour to escape from the impact of assault, launched upon him, ha entered into the house of petitioner and rushed to the roof top of the house of petitioner No.1. There is nothing on record to show that petitioners were one of the assailant, who were following the victims. Thus, prima facie the petitioners cannot be a mob allegedly having a common intention to commit the above mentioned offence; iv) that the only allegations against the petitioners is that the petitioners, when victim entered the home of petitioner No.1 joined the mob and snatched the mobile However the CCTV footage nowhere supports the claim of the complainant to this effect; that even if it is assumed that recovery of above mentioned mobile phone has to take place the same can be facilitated by issuing a direction to t investigation; vi) that the investigation and trial of the case are not likely to be concluded in near future; vii) that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not likely to serve any purpose; 5. Mr. Rajesh Nain, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of complainant and files Power of Attorney. The same be 7. The record has been perused carefully. 8. A perusal of the record shows that there are several factors which are required to be taken into consideration at this i) that name of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR. The contents of the FIR nowhere reveals that any injury on the person of complainant/victim was caused by the petitioners; ii) that the petitioners have clean antecedents;that as per story set out by the prosecution the victim in his endeavour to escape from the impact of assault, launched upon him, had entered into the house of petitioner and rushed to the roof top of the house of petitioner No.1. There is nothing on record to show that petitioners were one of the assailant, who were following the victims. Thus, prima facie the petitioners cannot be a part of the mob allegedly having a common intention to commit the above iv) that the only allegations against the petitioners is that the petitioners, when victim entered the home of petitioner No.1 joined the mob and snatched the mobile phone of complainant. However the CCTV footage nowhere supports the claim of the that even if it is assumed that recovery of above mentioned mobile phone has to take place the same can be facilitated by issuing a direction to the petitioners to join the vi) that the investigation and trial of the case are not likely vii) that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not 5. Mr. Rajesh Nain, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of complainant and files Power of Attorney. The same be 8. A perusal of the record shows that there are several factors which are required to be taken into consideration at this i) that name of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR. y injury on the that as per story set out by the prosecution the victim in his endeavour to d entered into the house of petitioner and rushed to the roof top of the house of petitioner No.1. There is nothing on record to show that petitioners were one of the assailant, who were following the part of the mob allegedly having a common intention to commit the above iv) that the only allegations against the petitioners is that the petitioners, when victim entered the home of petitioner No.1 phone of complainant. However the CCTV footage nowhere supports the claim of the that even if it is assumed that recovery of above mentioned mobile phone has to take place the same can he petitioners to join the vi) that the investigation and trial of the case are not likely vii) that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not GURPREET 2026.05.01 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-7945 on bail, the petitioners are likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the prosecution witnesses; and on above mentioned factors, it is hereby held that the petitioners are entitled for interim anticipatory bail. the peti bail on furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer. The petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called by the Arresting Officer. They shall also abide by the conditions as specified under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner the order dated petitioners have 4. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions has submitted that the petitioner longer required for further investigation. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the offence committed by petitioner grant of bail to the petitioner 6. In view of the statement made by lear interim order dated 7945-2026 4 viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioners are likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the prosecution witnesses; and ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperat 9. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the above mentioned factors, it is hereby held that the petitioners are entitled for interim anticipatory bail. 10. Thus, it is hereby ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioners, they shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer. The petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called by the Arresting Officer. They shall also abide by the conditions as specified under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 11. List on 30.04.2026, for awaiting report. 12. To be shown in the urgent list. Learned counsel for the petitioner the order dated 11.02.2026 passed by the Co ve joined the investigation. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions has submitted that the petitioners have joined the investigation and required for further investigation. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the offence committed by petitioners is serious in nature and hence, opposes the grant of bail to the petitioners. In view of the statement made by lear interim order dated 11.02.2026 passed by the n record to show that if released on bail, the petitioners are likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the prosecution witnesses; and ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial. 9. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the above mentioned factors, it is hereby held that the petitioners are entitled for interim anticipatory bail. 10. Thus, it is hereby ordered that in the event of arrest of tioners, they shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer. The petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called by the Arresting Officer. They shall also abide by the conditions as specified under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik 11. List on 30.04.2026, for awaiting report. To be shown in the urgent list.” Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in compliance of Co-ordinate Bench of Court, the Learned counsel for the State, on instructions of SI Ishwar Singh, joined the investigation and are no Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the is serious in nature and hence, opposes the In view of the statement made by learned State counsel, the the Co-ordinate Bench of this n record to show that if released on bail, the petitioners are likely to tamper with the evidence or ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released 9. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the above mentioned factors, it is hereby held that the petitioners are 10. Thus, it is hereby ordered that in the event of arrest of tioners, they shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer. The petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called by the Arresting Officer. They shall also abide by the conditions as specified under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik submits that in compliance of Court, the of SI Ishwar Singh, no Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the is serious in nature and hence, opposes the ned State counsel, the this GURPREET 2026.05.01 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-7945 Court, is made absolute. The petitioner as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of the BNSS 30.04.2026 Gurpreet 7945-2026 5 Court, is made absolute. The petitioners shall continue to join investigation, as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the ons as provided under Section 482(2) of the BNSS i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No shall continue to join investigation, as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the ons as provided under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No shall continue to join investigation, as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) GURPREET 2026.05.01 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.