Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2023 DAILYLAW 5508 (PNJ)

ABHIYAS ALIAS AVINASH v. STATE OF HARYANA

CRM-M/23304/2026 · 2026-05-29

Rupinderjit Chahal

body2023

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-23304 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 263 ABHIYAS ALIAS AVINASH STATE OF HARYANA CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. for the petitioner. Mr. Armaan Dahiya, AAG, Haryana. ***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) 1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case Sections 115(2), 351(3), 232 and 111(2)(a) o 2023, at Police Station Sector 2. On the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to in case FIR No.41 dated 12.02.2026 registered under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 232 and 111(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Sector petitioner 23304-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision: ABHIYAS ALIAS AVINASH Versus HARYANA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Abhishek Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Armaan Dahiya, AAG, Haryana. ***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.41 dated 12.02.2026 registered under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 232 and 111(2)(a) o 2023, at Police Station Sector-14 Panchkula. On 18.05.2026, the following order “Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to in case FIR No.41 dated 12.02.2026 registered under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 232 and 111(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Sector Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-23304-2026 Date of decision: 29.05.2026 ….Petitioner ....Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Armaan Dahiya, AAG, Haryana. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the petitioner FIR No.41 dated 12.02.2026 registered under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 232 and 111(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, following order was passed by this Court: - Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.41 dated 12.02.2026 registered under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 232 and 111(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Sector-14 Panchkula. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the has been falsely implicated in the present case and he ….Petitioner ....Respondent Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the petitioner FIR No.41 dated 12.02.2026 registered under f the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the petitioner in case FIR No.41 dated 12.02.2026 registered under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 232 and 111(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the has been falsely implicated in the present case and he GURPREET 2026.05.29 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-23304 has no concern with the said incident. He further submitted that the petitioner was roped in the present FIR because of previous enmity. He argued that the alleged occurrence took place in the Court pr registered on 12.02.2026 only after second occurrence on 11.02.2026, thus, casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. He argued that at the time of alleged incident, the petitioner was not in Panchkula argued that if the contents of the FIR are taken to be true, even then the only allegation against the petitioner is that he only threatened the complainant not to give statement against him and thus, Section make the offence graver. He further submitted that statement of complainant in the said FIR has already been recorded. He argued that earlier, the petitioner was granted the concession of interim bail by same was withdrawn later antecedents of the petitioner was not mentioned in the petition. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further subm willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. the status report in the matter and while referring to the sam she has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature as he was specifically named in the FIR. She has further submitted that the petitioner is involved in mor 15 cases meaning thereby he is a habitual offender. investigation within a week from today and would appear as and when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, he shall be 23304-2026 2 has no concern with the said incident. He further submitted that the petitioner was roped in the present FIR because of previous enmity. He argued that the alleged occurrence took place in the Court premises on 09.01.2026 but the FIR in question was registered on 12.02.2026 only after second occurrence on 11.02.2026, thus, casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. He argued that at the time of alleged incident, the petitioner was not in Panchkula and rather, he was in Baltana (Pb.). He further argued that if the contents of the FIR are taken to be true, even then the only allegation against the petitioner is that he only threatened the complainant not to give statement against him and thus, Section 115(2) of BNS was added by the prosecution only to make the offence graver. He further submitted that statement of complainant in the said FIR has already been recorded. He argued that earlier, the petitioner was granted the concession of interim bail by this Court, vide order dated 02.04.2026 but the same was withdrawn later on, vide order dated 20.04.2026 as antecedents of the petitioner was not mentioned in the petition. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. On the other hand, learned State counsel has already filed the status report in the matter and while referring to the sam she has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature as he was specifically named in the FIR. She has further submitted that the petitioner is involved in mor 15 cases meaning thereby he is a habitual offender. Adjourned to 27.05.2026. In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation within a week from today and would appear as and when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, he shall be has no concern with the said incident. He further submitted that the petitioner was roped in the present FIR because of previous enmity. He argued that the alleged occurrence took place in the emises on 09.01.2026 but the FIR in question was registered on 12.02.2026 only after second occurrence on 11.02.2026, thus, casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. He argued that at the time of alleged incident, the petitioner was and rather, he was in Baltana (Pb.). He further argued that if the contents of the FIR are taken to be true, even then the only allegation against the petitioner is that he only threatened the complainant not to give statement against him and 115(2) of BNS was added by the prosecution only to make the offence graver. He further submitted that statement of complainant in the said FIR has already been recorded. He argued that earlier, the petitioner was granted the concession of this Court, vide order dated 02.04.2026 but the on, vide order dated 20.04.2026 as antecedents of the petitioner was not mentioned in the petition. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned itted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so On the other hand, learned State counsel has already filed the status report in the matter and while referring to the same, she has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature as he was specifically named in the FIR. She has further submitted that the petitioner is involved in more than 15 cases meaning thereby he is a habitual offender. In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation within a week from today and would appear as and when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, he shall be has no concern with the said incident. He further submitted that the petitioner was roped in the present FIR because of previous enmity. He argued that the alleged occurrence took place in the emises on 09.01.2026 but the FIR in question was registered on 12.02.2026 only after second occurrence on 11.02.2026, thus, casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. He argued that at the time of alleged incident, the petitioner was and rather, he was in Baltana (Pb.). He further argued that if the contents of the FIR are taken to be true, even then the only allegation against the petitioner is that he only threatened the complainant not to give statement against him and 115(2) of BNS was added by the prosecution only to make the offence graver. He further submitted that statement of complainant in the said FIR has already been recorded. He argued that earlier, the petitioner was granted the concession of this Court, vide order dated 02.04.2026 but the on, vide order dated 20.04.2026 as antecedents of the petitioner was not mentioned in the petition. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned itted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so On the other hand, learned State counsel has already filed e, she has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature as he was specifically named in the FIR. She e than In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation within a week from today and would appear as and with the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, he shall be GURPREET 2026.05.29 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-23304 admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Sect 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. 3. L the order dated investigation. 4. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions Kumar has submitted that the petitioner ha longer required for further investigation. 5. In view of the statement made by learned State counsel, the interim order dated petitioner shall continue to join investigation, as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of the BNSS 29.05.2026 Gurpreet 23304-2026 3 admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Sect 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order dated 18.05.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner ha investigation. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation and longer required for further investigation. In view of the statement made by learned State counsel, the interim order dated 18.05.2026 passed by this Court, is made ab petitioner shall continue to join investigation, as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section earned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Raman joined the investigation and is no In view of the statement made by learned State counsel, the passed by this Court, is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join investigation, as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner ion earned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of joined the Raman no In view of the statement made by learned State counsel, the solute. The petitioner shall continue to join investigation, as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) GURPREET 2026.05.29 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.