IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (i) Manpreet Singh State of Punjab (ii) Kuldeep Singh State of Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. For the petitioners. Mr. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Petitioners Manpreet Singh petitioner Kuldeep Singh son of Tek Singh in approached this Court by way of the present petitions filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.60 dated 26.04.2026 registered at Police Station Arniwala, District Fa 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 2. The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant Pawandeep Singh altercation had taken place about 20 motorcycle of the complainant allegedly collided with the Kuldeep Singh. Though the matter appeared to have subsided, the complainant Page N: 1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CRM-M-33789 of 2026 DECIDED ON: 12.06.2026 Manpreet Singh & Anr. Versus CRM-M-33794 of 2026 Versus CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Aakash Singla, Advocate For the petitioners. Mr. Ferry Sofat, Addl. AG Punjab. *** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Petitioners Manpreet Singh & Sandeep Singh in petitioner Kuldeep Singh son of Tek Singh in approached this Court by way of the present petitions filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.60 dated 26.04.2026 registered at Police Station Arniwala, District Fazilka under Sections 115(2), 140(3), 351(2), 304, 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant Pawandeep Singh son of Surinder Singh. As per the pr altercation had taken place about 20–25 days prior to the occurrence motorcycle of the complainant allegedly collided with the Kuldeep Singh. Though the matter appeared to have subsided, the complainant IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 33789 of 2026(O&M) DECIDED ON: 12.06.2026 …Petitioners …Respondent 33794 of 2026(O&M) …Petitioner …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Sandeep Singh in CRM-M-33789-2026 and petitioner Kuldeep Singh son of Tek Singh in CRM-M-33794-2026 have approached this Court by way of the present petitions filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.60 dated 26.04.2026 registered at Police Station zilka under Sections 115(2), 140(3), 351(2), 304, 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant . As per the prosecution version, an 25 days prior to the occurrence, when the motorcycle of the complainant allegedly collided with the Scooty of petitioner Kuldeep Singh. Though the matter appeared to have subsided, the complainant Petitioners Respondent Petitioner Respondent and have approached this Court by way of the present petitions filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.60 dated 26.04.2026 registered at Police Station zilka under Sections 115(2), 140(3), 351(2), 304, 191(3) and 27 of the Arms Act. The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant osecution version, an when the of petitioner Kuldeep Singh. Though the matter appeared to have subsided, the complainant JITEN SHARMA 2026.06.15 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document alleged that on 26.04.2026 at about 10.00 a.m., when he was returning from his agricultural fields after serving meals to his father, he was intercepted by the accused persons alleged that the baseball bats and firearms. The complainant was allegedly assaulted, forcibly dragged to the house of petitioner Kuldeep Singh, confined by being tied to a pole in the courtyard and subjected t his mobile phone was snatched and that injuries were also caused to Baljeet Singh and Gurveer Singh the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present FIR ca 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner Kuldeep Singh submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated owing to political rivalry. It is argued that the complainant is closely associated with the ruling political dispensation, whereas petitioner Kuldeep Singh and his family are politically aligned with the opposition. It is further contended that the FIR is a fallout of a pre-existing civil dispute and that the complainant party has roped in several members of the petitioner participation in local Panchayat affairs. 4. It is further argued that the so independent at all and are politically aligned with the complainant. Learned counsel has referred to certain photographs annexed with the petition to contend that the witnesses projected as passers the complainant party. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners themselves suffered injuries documents pertaining to petitioner Kuldeep Singh to contend that he sustained a grievous injury. It is argued that despite the accused side suffering injuries, the police initially refused to recor recorded only after intervention of senior police officials. It is thus contended that the case is one of version and cross conclusively determined as to which party wa Page N: 2 of 6 alleged that on 26.04.2026 at about 10.00 a.m., when he was returning from his agricultural fields after serving meals to his father, he was intercepted by the accused persons (petitioners & other co-accused) alleged that the assailants, including the present petitioners, were armed with baseball bats and firearms. The complainant was allegedly assaulted, forcibly dragged to the house of petitioner Kuldeep Singh, confined by being tied to a pole in the courtyard and subjected to further assault. It is further alleged that his mobile phone was snatched and that injuries were also caused to Baljeet Singh and Gurveer Singh, when they intervened to rescue the complainant. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present FIR ca Learned counsel appearing for petitioner Kuldeep Singh submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated owing to political rivalry. It is argued that the complainant is closely associated with the ruling political whereas petitioner Kuldeep Singh and his family are politically aligned with the opposition. It is further contended that the FIR is a fallout of a existing civil dispute and that the complainant party has roped in several members of the petitioner’s family and their associates merely because of their participation in local Panchayat affairs. It is further argued that the so-called independent witnesses are not independent at all and are politically aligned with the complainant. Learned has referred to certain photographs annexed with the petition to contend that the witnesses projected as passers the complainant party. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners themselves suffered injuries in the occurrence. Reference has been made to the medical documents pertaining to petitioner Kuldeep Singh to contend that he sustained a grievous injury. It is argued that despite the accused side suffering injuries, the police initially refused to record their version and a cross recorded only after intervention of senior police officials. It is thus contended that the case is one of version and cross-version and, at this stage, it cannot be conclusively determined as to which party was the aggressor. alleged that on 26.04.2026 at about 10.00 a.m., when he was returning from his agricultural fields after serving meals to his father, he was intercepted by the accused) near the village chowk. It is assailants, including the present petitioners, were armed with baseball bats and firearms. The complainant was allegedly assaulted, forcibly dragged to the house of petitioner Kuldeep Singh, confined by being tied to a o further assault. It is further alleged that his mobile phone was snatched and that injuries were also caused to Baljeet when they intervened to rescue the complainant. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present FIR came to be registered. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner Kuldeep Singh submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated owing to political rivalry. It is argued that the complainant is closely associated with the ruling political whereas petitioner Kuldeep Singh and his family are politically aligned with the opposition. It is further contended that the FIR is a fallout of a existing civil dispute and that the complainant party has roped in several ’s family and their associates merely because of their called independent witnesses are not independent at all and are politically aligned with the complainant. Learned has referred to certain photographs annexed with the petition to contend that the witnesses projected as passers-by were in fact actively assisting Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners themselves in the occurrence. Reference has been made to the medical documents pertaining to petitioner Kuldeep Singh to contend that he sustained a grievous injury. It is argued that despite the accused side suffering injuries, the d their version and a cross-version came to be recorded only after intervention of senior police officials. It is thus contended version and, at this stage, it cannot be s the aggressor. alleged that on 26.04.2026 at about 10.00 a.m., when he was returning from his agricultural fields after serving meals to his father, he was intercepted by the near the village chowk. It is assailants, including the present petitioners, were armed with baseball bats and firearms. The complainant was allegedly assaulted, forcibly dragged to the house of petitioner Kuldeep Singh, confined by being tied to a o further assault. It is further alleged that his mobile phone was snatched and that injuries were also caused to Baljeet when they intervened to rescue the complainant. On Learned counsel appearing for petitioner Kuldeep Singh submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated owing to political rivalry. It is argued that the complainant is closely associated with the ruling political whereas petitioner Kuldeep Singh and his family are politically aligned with the opposition. It is further contended that the FIR is a fallout of a existing civil dispute and that the complainant party has roped in several ’s family and their associates merely because of their called independent witnesses are not independent at all and are politically aligned with the complainant. Learned has referred to certain photographs annexed with the petition to by were in fact actively assisting Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners themselves in the occurrence. Reference has been made to the medical documents pertaining to petitioner Kuldeep Singh to contend that he sustained a grievous injury. It is argued that despite the accused side suffering injuries, the version came to be recorded only after intervention of senior police officials. It is thus contended version and, at this stage, it cannot be JITEN SHARMA 2026.06.15 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6. Learned counsel has also questioned the addition of Section 140(3) BNS and submits that the allegation of kidnapping has been introduced subsequently only to aggravate the nature of the offence and to defeat the claim for anticipatory petitioner Kuldeep Singh and that the allegations regarding his having pointed a pistol, raised a lalkara and covered the face of the complainant are exaggerated and false. Reliance is also p according to the petitioners, creates doubt regarding the prosecution version. 7. In addition to above contentions, o Singh and Sandeep Singh, it has been argued that thoug attributed to them, the injuries allegedly caused by them are simple in nature and are not on any vital part of the body. It is further submitted that two co accused have already been granted interim anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench and, therefore, the petitioners also deserve the same relief on the ground of parity. 8. Per contra submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR are grave and specific. Particular emphasis forcibly abducted, taken to the house of one of the accused wrongfully confined and assaulted by a group of assailants. It is contended that petitioner Kuldeep Singh played a dragging the complainant to his house after threatening him with a firearm. It is further submitted that the weapons used in the commission of the offence are yet to be recovered and custodial interrogation of th for a fair and effective investigation. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 10. The parameters governing grant of anticipatory bail are well settled. While considering a petition under Section 482 BNSS (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.), the Court is required to examine the nature and gravity of the Page N: 3 of 6 Learned counsel has also questioned the addition of Section 140(3) BNS and submits that the allegation of kidnapping has been introduced subsequently only to aggravate the nature of the offence and to defeat the claim for anticipatory bail. It is further argued that no injury has been attributed to petitioner Kuldeep Singh and that the allegations regarding his having pointed a pistol, raised a lalkara and covered the face of the complainant are exaggerated and false. Reliance is also placed upon the delay in lodging of the FIR, which, according to the petitioners, creates doubt regarding the prosecution version. In addition to above contentions, o Singh and Sandeep Singh, it has been argued that thoug attributed to them, the injuries allegedly caused by them are simple in nature and are not on any vital part of the body. It is further submitted that two co accused have already been granted interim anticipatory bail by a Coordinate ench and, therefore, the petitioners also deserve the same relief on the ground Per contra, learned State counselhas opposed the petitions. It is submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR are grave and specific. Particular emphasis has been laid upon the allegation that the complainant was forcibly abducted, taken to the house of one of the accused wrongfully confined and assaulted by a group of assailants. It is contended that petitioner Kuldeep Singh played a central role in the occurrence by allegedly dragging the complainant to his house after threatening him with a firearm. It is further submitted that the weapons used in the commission of the offence are yet to be recovered and custodial interrogation of th for a fair and effective investigation. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the The parameters governing grant of anticipatory bail are well settled. While considering a petition under Section 482 BNSS (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.), the Court is required to examine the nature and gravity of the Learned counsel has also questioned the addition of Section 140(3) BNS and submits that the allegation of kidnapping has been introduced subsequently only to aggravate the nature of the offence and to defeat the claim bail. It is further argued that no injury has been attributed to petitioner Kuldeep Singh and that the allegations regarding his having pointed a pistol, raised a lalkara and covered the face of the complainant are exaggerated laced upon the delay in lodging of the FIR, which, according to the petitioners, creates doubt regarding the prosecution version. In addition to above contentions, on behalf of petitioners Manpreet Singh and Sandeep Singh, it has been argued that though injuries have been attributed to them, the injuries allegedly caused by them are simple in nature and are not on any vital part of the body. It is further submitted that two co accused have already been granted interim anticipatory bail by a Coordinate ench and, therefore, the petitioners also deserve the same relief on the ground , learned State counselhas opposed the petitions. It is submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR are grave and specific. has been laid upon the allegation that the complainant was forcibly abducted, taken to the house of one of the accused (petitioner Kuldeep) wrongfully confined and assaulted by a group of assailants. It is contended that central role in the occurrence by allegedly dragging the complainant to his house after threatening him with a firearm. It is further submitted that the weapons used in the commission of the offence are yet to be recovered and custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the The parameters governing grant of anticipatory bail are well settled. While considering a petition under Section 482 BNSS (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.), the Court is required to examine the nature and gravity of the Learned counsel has also questioned the addition of Section 140(3) BNS and submits that the allegation of kidnapping has been introduced subsequently only to aggravate the nature of the offence and to defeat the claim bail. It is further argued that no injury has been attributed to petitioner Kuldeep Singh and that the allegations regarding his having pointed a pistol, raised a lalkara and covered the face of the complainant are exaggerated laced upon the delay in lodging of the FIR, which, n behalf of petitioners Manpreet h injuries have been attributed to them, the injuries allegedly caused by them are simple in nature and are not on any vital part of the body. It is further submitted that two co- accused have already been granted interim anticipatory bail by a Coordinate ench and, therefore, the petitioners also deserve the same relief on the ground , learned State counselhas opposed the petitions. It is submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR are grave and specific. has been laid upon the allegation that the complainant was (petitioner Kuldeep), wrongfully confined and assaulted by a group of assailants. It is contended that central role in the occurrence by allegedly dragging the complainant to his house after threatening him with a firearm. It is further submitted that the weapons used in the commission of the offence are e petitioners is necessary I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the The parameters governing grant of anticipatory bail are well settled. While considering a petition under Section 482 BNSS (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.), the Court is required to examine the nature and gravity of the JITEN SHARMA 2026.06.15 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document accusations, the specific role custodial interrogation, the possibility of recovery of incriminating articles and the overall impact of grant of pre extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail is not against whom serious and specific allegations requiring thorough investigation have been levelled. 11. In the present case, the prosecution version cannot be viewed as a mere case of a village quarrel or exchange of injuries The gravamen of the allegations is that the complainant was intercepted on a public road by dragged away, taken to the house of one of the accused tied to a pole in the courtyard and thereafter subjected to assault. It is further alleged that his mobile phone was snatched and that injuries were also caused to the persons, their face value, disclose offences involving wrongful restraint, abduction, wrongful confinement, assault by an unlawful assembly and use of firearms. 12. So far as petitioner Kuldeep Singh son of Tek Singh is concerned, the allegations against him are specific and He is alleged to have taken out a pistol, raised a lalkara, covered the face of the complainant, dragged him with the assistance of other accused persons and taken him to the place him is, therefore, central to the occurrence as projected by the prosecution. 13. Likewise, petitioners Manpreet Singh and Sandeep Singh have also been specifically named in the FIR and are attributed overt acts of causing injuries to the complainant. Merely because the injuries allegedly caused by them are stated to be simple in nature would not, by itself, entitle them to anticipatory bail. The allegations have to be appreciated in the context of the entire occurrence and not in i accused formed an unlawful assembly and acted in concert while executing the alleged assault and confinement of the complainant. Therefore, at this stage, the Page N: 4 of 6 accusations, the specific role attributed to the accused, the requirement of custodial interrogation, the possibility of recovery of incriminating articles and the overall impact of grant of pre-arrest bail upon a fair investigation. The extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail is not against whom serious and specific allegations requiring thorough investigation have been levelled. In the present case, the prosecution version cannot be viewed as a mere case of a village quarrel or exchange of injuries The gravamen of the allegations is that the complainant was intercepted on a public road by large number of assailants, including the petitioners, dragged away, taken to the house of one of the accused tied to a pole in the courtyard and thereafter subjected to assault. It is further alleged that his mobile phone was snatched and that injuries were also caused , who attempted to rescue him. Thus, the allegations, if taken at alue, disclose offences involving wrongful restraint, abduction, wrongful confinement, assault by an unlawful assembly and use of firearms. So far as petitioner Kuldeep Singh son of Tek Singh is concerned, the allegations against him are specific and not merely by way of vicarious liability. He is alleged to have taken out a pistol, raised a lalkara, covered the face of the complainant, dragged him with the assistance of other accused persons and taken him to the place, where he was allegedly confined. him is, therefore, central to the occurrence as projected by the prosecution. Likewise, petitioners Manpreet Singh and Sandeep Singh have also been specifically named in the FIR and are attributed overt acts of causing to the complainant. Merely because the injuries allegedly caused by them are stated to be simple in nature would not, by itself, entitle them to anticipatory bail. The allegations have to be appreciated in the context of the entire occurrence and not in isolation. The prosecution case is that all the accused formed an unlawful assembly and acted in concert while executing the alleged assault and confinement of the complainant. Therefore, at this stage, the attributed to the accused, the requirement of custodial interrogation, the possibility of recovery of incriminating articles and arrest bail upon a fair investigation. The extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail is not intended to shield an accused against whom serious and specific allegations requiring thorough investigation In the present case, the prosecution version cannot be viewed as a mere case of a village quarrel or exchange of injuries between two rival groups. The gravamen of the allegations is that the complainant was intercepted on a including the petitioners, forcibly dragged away, taken to the house of one of the accused – petitioner Kuldee tied to a pole in the courtyard and thereafter subjected to assault. It is further alleged that his mobile phone was snatched and that injuries were also caused who attempted to rescue him. Thus, the allegations, if taken at alue, disclose offences involving wrongful restraint, abduction, wrongful confinement, assault by an unlawful assembly and use of firearms. So far as petitioner Kuldeep Singh son of Tek Singh is concerned, the not merely by way of vicarious liability. He is alleged to have taken out a pistol, raised a lalkara, covered the face of the complainant, dragged him with the assistance of other accused persons and where he was allegedly confined. The role attributed to him is, therefore, central to the occurrence as projected by the prosecution. Likewise, petitioners Manpreet Singh and Sandeep Singh have also been specifically named in the FIR and are attributed overt acts of causing to the complainant. Merely because the injuries allegedly caused by them are stated to be simple in nature would not, by itself, entitle them to anticipatory bail. The allegations have to be appreciated in the context of the solation. The prosecution case is that all the accused formed an unlawful assembly and acted in concert while executing the alleged assault and confinement of the complainant. Therefore, at this stage, the attributed to the accused, the requirement of custodial interrogation, the possibility of recovery of incriminating articles and arrest bail upon a fair investigation. The intended to shield an accused against whom serious and specific allegations requiring thorough investigation In the present case, the prosecution version cannot be viewed as a between two rival groups. The gravamen of the allegations is that the complainant was intercepted on a forcibly petitioner Kuldeep, tied to a pole in the courtyard and thereafter subjected to assault. It is further alleged that his mobile phone was snatched and that injuries were also caused who attempted to rescue him. Thus, the allegations, if taken at alue, disclose offences involving wrongful restraint, abduction, So far as petitioner Kuldeep Singh son of Tek Singh is concerned, the not merely by way of vicarious liability. He is alleged to have taken out a pistol, raised a lalkara, covered the face of the complainant, dragged him with the assistance of other accused persons and The role attributed to Likewise, petitioners Manpreet Singh and Sandeep Singh have also been specifically named in the FIR and are attributed overt acts of causing to the complainant. Merely because the injuries allegedly caused by them are stated to be simple in nature would not, by itself, entitle them to anticipatory bail. The allegations have to be appreciated in the context of the solation. The prosecution case is that all the accused formed an unlawful assembly and acted in concert while executing the alleged assault and confinement of the complainant. Therefore, at this stage, the JITEN SHARMA 2026.06.15 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document role of each accused cannot be compartmentalized s nature of the injury attributed to him. 14. Much emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for the petitioners upon the existence of a cross petitioner Kuldeep Singh. However, the me version does not automatically entitle an accused to the concession of anticipatory bail. Whether one party was the aggressor, whether the injuries on either side were sustained during the same occurrence and what effect circumstances ultimately have on the prosecution case are matters within the domain of investigation and trial. 15. At this stage, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of the rival versions or to record findings Suffice it to observe that the defence plea regarding injuries suffered by petitioner Kuldeep Singh raises disputed questions of fact conclusively adjudicated in proceedings seeking anticipatory bail. 16. Similarly political rivalry also raises a matter of defence. Allegations of political animosity, though relevant for purposes of trial, cannot by themselves constitute a ground for grant of anticipatory bail attributes definite roles to the accused persons. 17. The plea of parity based upon interim protection granted to certain co-accused is equally unavailing. The principle of parity is not to be applied mechanically. The role attributed to the present petitioners independently assessed on the basis of the allegations appearing in the FIR and the requirements of investigation. 18. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the weapons allegedly used in the occurrence are yet to be recovered. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the stage of investigation, this Court is of the considered view that grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may impede a fair and effective investigat Page N: 5 of 6 role of each accused cannot be compartmentalized s nature of the injury attributed to him. Much emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for the petitioners upon the existence of a cross-version and the injuries allegedly suffered by petitioner Kuldeep Singh. However, the mere existence of a version and cross version does not automatically entitle an accused to the concession of anticipatory bail. Whether one party was the aggressor, whether the injuries on either side were sustained during the same occurrence and what effect circumstances ultimately have on the prosecution case are matters within the domain of investigation and trial. At this stage, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of the rival versions or to record findings Suffice it to observe that the defence plea regarding injuries suffered by petitioner Kuldeep Singh raises disputed questions of fact conclusively adjudicated in proceedings seeking anticipatory bail. Similarly, the contention that the FIR has been lodged due to political rivalry also raises a matter of defence. Allegations of political animosity, though relevant for purposes of trial, cannot by themselves constitute a ground for grant of anticipatory bail, where the FIR contains specific allegations and attributes definite roles to the accused persons. The plea of parity based upon interim protection granted to certain accused is equally unavailing. The principle of parity is not to be applied ly. The role attributed to the present petitioners independently assessed on the basis of the allegations appearing in the FIR and the requirements of investigation. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the weapons dly used in the occurrence are yet to be recovered. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the stage of investigation, this Court is of the considered view that grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may impede a fair and effective investigation. role of each accused cannot be compartmentalized solely on the basis of the Much emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for the petitioners version and the injuries allegedly suffered by re existence of a version and cross version does not automatically entitle an accused to the concession of anticipatory bail. Whether one party was the aggressor, whether the injuries on either side were sustained during the same occurrence and what effect such circumstances ultimately have on the prosecution case are matters, which fall At this stage, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of the rival versions or to record findings upon their correctness. Suffice it to observe that the defence plea regarding injuries suffered by petitioner Kuldeep Singh raises disputed questions of fact, which cannot be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings seeking anticipatory bail. , the contention that the FIR has been lodged due to political rivalry also raises a matter of defence. Allegations of political animosity, though relevant for purposes of trial, cannot by themselves constitute a ground e the FIR contains specific allegations and attributes definite roles to the accused persons. The plea of parity based upon interim protection granted to certain accused is equally unavailing. The principle of parity is not to be applied ly. The role attributed to the present petitioners is required to be independently assessed on the basis of the allegations appearing in the FIR and Learned State counsel has further submitted that the weapons dly used in the occurrence are yet to be recovered. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the stage of investigation, this Court is of the considered view that grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may impede a fair olely on the basis of the Much emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for the petitioners version and the injuries allegedly suffered by re existence of a version and cross- version does not automatically entitle an accused to the concession of anticipatory bail. Whether one party was the aggressor, whether the injuries on such which fall At this stage, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous upon their correctness. Suffice it to observe that the defence plea regarding injuries suffered by which cannot be , the contention that the FIR has been lodged due to political rivalry also raises a matter of defence. Allegations of political animosity, though relevant for purposes of trial, cannot by themselves constitute a ground e the FIR contains specific allegations and The plea of parity based upon interim protection granted to certain accused is equally unavailing. The principle of parity is not to be applied is required to be independently assessed on the basis of the allegations appearing in the FIR and Learned State counsel has further submitted that the weapons dly used in the occurrence are yet to be recovered. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the stage of investigation, this Court is of the considered view that grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may impede a fair JITEN SHARMA 2026.06.15 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 19. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the specific roles attributed to the petitioners, the allegation of forcible abduction and confinement of the complainant, the requirement of recovery of weapons and the overall circumstances of the for exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of granting anticipatory bail. 20. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed. 21. It is, however, clarified that any observation made herein is confined solely to the adjudication of the present petitions and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case during investigation or trial. 12.06.2026 Jiten Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Uploaded on : Page N: 6 of 6 Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the specific roles attributed to the petitioners, the allegation of forcible abduction and confinement of the complainant, the requirement of recovery of weapons and the overall circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of granting anticipatory bail. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed. It is, however, clarified that any observation made herein is d solely to the adjudication of the present petitions and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case during investigation or trial. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Uploaded on : June 15,2026 Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the specific roles attributed to the petitioners, the allegation of forcible abduction and confinement of the complainant, the requirement of recovery of weapons and case, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of granting anticipatory bail. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed. It is, however, clarified that any observation made herein is d solely to the adjudication of the present petitions and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case during investigation or trial. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the specific roles attributed to the petitioners, the allegation of forcible abduction and confinement of the complainant, the requirement of recovery of weapons and case, this Court does not find it to be a fit case It is, however, clarified that any observation made herein is d solely to the adjudication of the present petitions and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case during investigation or trial. JITEN SHARMA 2026.06.15 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document