CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----27127 27127 27127 27127 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----28626 28626 28626 28626 103 (2 cases) 103 (2 cases) 103 (2 cases) 103 (2 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Arpit @ Dheela Jaat State of Haryana Jassi State of Haryana Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present Present Present Present: SUMEET SUMEET SUMEET SUMEET GOEL GOEL GOEL GOEL Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 ( anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR 118(1), 126, 190, 191(3), 324(5), 351(3) of the 27127 27127 27127 27127----2026 2026 2026 2026 and and and and 28626 28626 28626 28626----2026 2026 2026 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH 1.1.1.1. CRM CRM CRM CRM---- Arpit @ Dheela Jaat versus Haryana 2.2.2.2. CRM CRM CRM CRM---- versus Haryana Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: July 16 July 16 July 16 July 16, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: July 16 July 16 July 16 July 16, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta, Senior Ms. Tanveen Kaur, Advocate for (in CRM-M-28626-2026). Mr. Saransh Sabharwal, Advocate for the petitioner (in CR-M-27127-2026). Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana. ***** ***** ***** ***** GOEL GOEL GOEL GOEL, J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) By this common order, the aforesaid Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 438 Cr. P.C.) seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner(s), namely, in case bearing FIR No.29 dated 09.03.2026 118(1), 126, 190, 191(3), 324(5), 351(3) of the 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH ----M M M M----27127 27127 27127 27127----2026 2026 2026 2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent ----M M M M----28626 28626 28626 28626----2026 2026 2026 2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta, Senior Advocate with for the petitioner Mr. Saransh Sabharwal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana. By this common order, the aforesaid two petitions filed under Section 438 Cr. P.C.) seeking grant of , Aprit @ Dheela Jaat and Jassi, 09.03.2026, registered under Sections 115, 118(1), 126, 190, 191(3), 324(5), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, ....Petitioner ....Respondent ....Petitioner ....Respondent petitions filed under Section 438 Cr. P.C.) seeking grant of , 115, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.17 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----27127 27127 27127 27127----2026 2026 2026 2026 and and and and CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----28626 28626 28626 28626----2026 2026 2026 2026 2222 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) (Section 110 of the BNS deleted and Section 118(2) of the BNS added later on), at Police Station Raipur Rani, District Panchkula. 2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the complainant, namely, Reshav, alleged that on 09.03.2026, he, along with his cousins Badan and Prince had attended a marriage ceremony at Mahabir Farm, Raipur Rani. After the function, while they were returning to their village in the complainant’s black Swift car bearing registration No.HR-03AF-8107, at about 3:00 P.M., upon reaching the Raipur Rani–Naraingarh Road near the Tehsil Office, Raipur Rani, a white Swift car allegedly intercepted their vehicle from the front, while another white car stopped behind them, thereby blocking their passage. The complainant further alleged that immediately thereafter, about eight to nine young-men, armed with dandas and gandasis, alighted from both vehicles and started vandalising his car by repeatedly striking it with their weapons while hurling abuses. It is alleged that accused Ranbir @ Raniya assaulted the complainant with danda blows on his shoulders and arms, whereas accused Vikant @ Chintu attempted to inflict a gandasi blow on his head. The complainant claimed that he raised his right hand to ward off the attack, as a result of which the blow landed on his right hand. It is further alleged that accused Ashish @ Shisha struck him on the nose with a danda. Besides the aforesaid accused, Astish, Jassi (petitioner in CRM-M- 28626-2026), Golu Gupta, Dhilla Jat (petitioner here in CRM-M-27127- 2026), along with two or three unidentified persons, who were stated to be identifiable, also allegedly participated in the assault and continued damaging the complainant’s vehicle with dandas and gandasis, causing MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.17 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----27127 27127 27127 27127----2026 2026 2026 2026 and and and and CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----28626 28626 28626 28626----2026 2026 2026 2026 3333 extensive damage. It is further the case of the complainant that upon his raising an alarm, a number of persons gathered at the spot, whereupon all the accused fled from the scene in their vehicles while extending threats that although the complainant had escaped on that occasion, he would be killed the next time. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner (in CRM-M-28626- 2026) as also learned counsel for the petitioner (in CRM-M-27127-2026) have iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioners are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsels have further iterated that the petitioners have been falsely implicated into the FIR. It has been submitted that the petitioners have not been attributed any injury. It has been further contended that there is nothing on record to show complicity of the petitioners in the offence in question. It has also been submitted that, in fact, the petitioner – Jassi was not present at the spot where the alleged occurrence took place and the same is clear from the CCTV footage. Learned counsels have further urged that the petitioners are young-men with clean antecedents. 3.1. Learned counsels have asserted that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners. Moreover, the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Furthermore, the petitioners are ready to join the investigation and, hence, no useful purpose would be served by sending them behind the bars. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for. 4. Learned State counsel, while raising submissions in tandem with the status reports, filed in respective cases, has opposed the grant of MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.17 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----27127 27127 27127 27127----2026 2026 2026 2026 and and and and CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----28626 28626 28626 28626----2026 2026 2026 2026 4444 anticipatory bail to the petitioners by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioners is serious in nature. It is argued that in the CCTV footage, accused persons were visible hitting the complainant’s vehicle with sticks etc. It has been stated in para-9 of the status report (in CRM-M-28626-2026) as under: ““““9. The FIR against the petitioner has been registered by name wherein specific role has been attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner being a member of unlawful assembly damaged the car of the complainant and in the said incident, complainant suffered three injuries, one caused by sharp edged weapon and two injuries caused by blunt weapon. The present FIR contains Section 110 BNS which is grave and serious offence regarding attempt to culpable homicide.”””” Further, it has been stated in para-9 of the status report (in CRM-M-27127-2026) as under: ““““9. That 12.03.2026 the present petitioner was arrested in connection with the case and his disclosure statement was got recorded on 13.03.2026. A copy of the disclosure statement of the petitioner is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-3. The specific role of the present petitioner is that he along with other co-accused persons broke the car of injured Reshav with danda. Furthermore, he along with his accomplices also gave severe beatings to injured Reshav. When they saw that other persons are gathering at the spot, they ran away after sitting in their car. He dropped some of his associates along the way, and he and Vikram Alias Vicky boarded the borrowed car and went to Uttarakhand, where he parked/hid the car near St. Paul's Church in Mussoorie and threw/hid the sticks and handles used in the incident in the nearby bushes.”””” 4.1. It is, thus, argued that given the severity of the offence, there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioners may abscond from the process of justice and/or tamper with the prosecution witnesses/ evidence, if enlarged on bail. Learned State counsel has iterated that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is imperative for the purpose of effective and MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.17 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----27127 27127 27127 27127----2026 2026 2026 2026 and and and and CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----28626 28626 28626 28626----2026 2026 2026 2026 5555 fair investigation and to unearth the case of the prosecution. On these submissions, dismissal of the present petition is entreated for. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case. 6. As per the prosecution case and the material available on record, prima facie, serious and specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. It is, prima facie, borne out from the record that the complainant’s vehicle was deliberately intercepted by two cars, one from the front and the other from behind, thereby leaving him with no avenue of escape. Thereafter, about 8-9 assailants, armed with dandas and gandasis, assaulted the complainant and vandalised his vehicle. The petitioners, along with the remaining accused, participated in the assault and continuously damaged the complainant's vehicle with dandas and gandasis. The allegations prima facie disclose that the petitioners were members of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and acted in furtherance of the common object of the assembly. It has specifically been stated by the State in its status report(s) that the petitioners along with his co-accused damaged the car of the complainant and the complainant suffered three injuries, one was by sharp edged weapon and two injuries with blunt weapons. The manner in which the complainant was allegedly wrongfully restrained by blocking his vehicle from both sides, followed by a coordinated assault with deadly weapons and extensive damage to his vehicle, prima facie, reflects the gravity and seriousness of the allegations. 6.1. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioners have been falsely implicated into the present FIR. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.17 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----27127 27127 27127 27127----2026 2026 2026 2026 and and and and CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----28626 28626 28626 28626----2026 2026 2026 2026 6666 7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation, as also the deeper and wider impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioners. The material which has come on record and the preliminary investigation, appears to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State State State State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) v. Anil Sharma, (1997) v. Anil Sharma, (1997) v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] 1039] 1039] 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) ““““6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well- ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third- degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.”””” 8. In view of the seriousness and gravity of allegations and the role attributed to the petitioners, this Court finds no compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the petitioners. Granting bail, at this stage, would not only undermine the administration of justice but may MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.17 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----27127 27127 27127 27127----2026 2026 2026 2026 and and and and CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----28626 28626 28626 28626----2026 2026 2026 2026 7777 also embolden the accused and pose a threat to the safety and well-being of the victim/ complainant and other witnesses. 9. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, the investigation is still underway and custodial interrogation of the petitioners is being sought for effective investigation and to unearth the prosecution case. The petitions are, thus, devoid of merits and are hereby dismissed dismissed dismissed dismissed. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE July 16 July 16 July 16 July 16, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.17 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment