CRM-M-33317- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (218-1) ANKUR AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Ms. Pooja Jaglan, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. The 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. under Sections 191(3), 190, 115(2), 351(3), 2023 (for short “BNS”) BNS added later on and Police Station Model Town, Panipat. 2. As per the allegations, on 16th along with his neighbour, was going in his car towards Model Town, Panipat. On reaching near Arya Samaj Mandir, they found one Jeep moving slowly in the middle of the road, resulting in traffic congestion. One of the occu vehicle was waving a pistol in the air. When the complainant asked them to take -2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ANKUR AND ANOTHER Versus HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA J.S. Dadwal, Advocate and Ms. Pooja Jaglan, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short in case arising out of FIR No.115 dated 17.05.2026 registered under Sections 191(3), 190, 115(2), 351(3), 117(2) of 2023 (for short “BNS”) and Section 25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act (Section 110 of BNS added later on and Section 25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act deleted later on) at Police Station Model Town, Panipat. As per the allegations, on 16th May 2026, the complainant Hemant, along with his neighbour, was going in his car towards Model Town, Panipat. On reaching near Arya Samaj Mandir, they found one Jeep moving slowly in the middle of the road, resulting in traffic congestion. One of the occu vehicle was waving a pistol in the air. When the complainant asked them to take IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-33317-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 26.08.2026 ... Petitioners ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Ms. Pooja Jaglan, Advocate for the petitioners by the petitioners under Section of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant 115 dated 17.05.2026 registered 117(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, B)(a) of Arms Act (Section 110 of B)(a) of Arms Act deleted later on) at May 2026, the complainant Hemant, along with his neighbour, was going in his car towards Model Town, Panipat. On reaching near Arya Samaj Mandir, they found one Jeep moving slowly in the middle of the road, resulting in traffic congestion. One of the occupants of the vehicle was waving a pistol in the air. When the complainant asked them to take (O&M) 2026 under Section for grant 115 dated 17.05.2026 registered Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, B)(a) of Arms Act (Section 110 of B)(a) of Arms Act deleted later on) at May 2026, the complainant Hemant, along with his neighbour, was going in his car towards Model Town, Panipat. On reaching near Arya Samaj Mandir, they found one Jeep moving slowly in the pants of the vehicle was waving a pistol in the air. When the complainant asked them to take AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.27 13:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-33317- a side, he started threatening the complainant with dire consequences. The complainant tried to make a video of the said vehicle from his cell phone, and then the person present in the Jeep extended threat to shoot him. Thereafter, they left the spot. The complainant further alleged that some time thereafter, he was waylaid by those two persons who were occupying the Jeep and their accomplices, who were 8 to 10 in him by causing injuries with sticks, rods, and other weapons. On clamour being raised, they fled from the spot. The complainant had fallen unconscious. 3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings initiated. The CCTV footage of the place of occurrence was procured, and the complainant identified the petitioners. He also identified the co Khushiram and Vikas. The petitioners were arrested on 22.05.2026. They suffered disclosure statem the occurrence as well as an Activa vehicle. They also got demarcated the place of occurrence. Investigation qua the petitioners now stands concluded. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the been falsely implicated in this case. They were not named in the FIR. No specific overt act or injury has been attributed to them. The co has been extended benefit of anticipatory bail. On parity, they too deser given the same benefit. Their antecedents are clean. No useful purpose would be served by detaining them in custody anymore as the trial will take time to conclude. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. -2026 (O&M) 2 a side, he started threatening the complainant with dire consequences. The complainant tried to make a video of the said vehicle from his cell phone, and person present in the Jeep extended threat to shoot him. Thereafter, they left the spot. The complainant further alleged that some time thereafter, he was waylaid by those two persons who were occupying the Jeep and their accomplices, who were 8 to 10 in number. All of them opened an attack upon him by causing injuries with sticks, rods, and other weapons. On clamour being raised, they fled from the spot. The complainant had fallen unconscious. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings initiated. The CCTV footage of the place of occurrence was procured, and the complainant identified the petitioners. He also identified the co Khushiram and Vikas. The petitioners were arrested on 22.05.2026. They suffered disclosure statements and got recovered bamboo sticks used by them in the occurrence as well as an Activa vehicle. They also got demarcated the place of occurrence. Investigation qua the petitioners now stands concluded. It is argued by learned counsel for the been falsely implicated in this case. They were not named in the FIR. No specific overt act or injury has been attributed to them. The co has been extended benefit of anticipatory bail. On parity, they too deser given the same benefit. Their antecedents are clean. No useful purpose would be served by detaining them in custody anymore as the trial will take time to conclude. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. a side, he started threatening the complainant with dire consequences. The complainant tried to make a video of the said vehicle from his cell phone, and person present in the Jeep extended threat to shoot him. Thereafter, they left the spot. The complainant further alleged that some time thereafter, he was waylaid by those two persons who were occupying the Jeep and their number. All of them opened an attack upon him by causing injuries with sticks, rods, and other weapons. On clamour being raised, they fled from the spot. The complainant had fallen unconscious. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The CCTV footage of the place of occurrence was procured, and the complainant identified the petitioners. He also identified the co-accused Khushiram and Vikas. The petitioners were arrested on 22.05.2026. They and got recovered bamboo sticks used by them in the occurrence as well as an Activa vehicle. They also got demarcated the place of occurrence. Investigation qua the petitioners now stands concluded. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in this case. They were not named in the FIR. No specific overt act or injury has been attributed to them. The co-accused Sunil has been extended benefit of anticipatory bail. On parity, they too deserve to be given the same benefit. Their antecedents are clean. No useful purpose would be served by detaining them in custody anymore as the trial will take time to conclude. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. a side, he started threatening the complainant with dire consequences. The complainant tried to make a video of the said vehicle from his cell phone, and person present in the Jeep extended threat to shoot him. Thereafter, they left the spot. The complainant further alleged that some time thereafter, he was waylaid by those two persons who were occupying the Jeep and their number. All of them opened an attack upon him by causing injuries with sticks, rods, and other weapons. On clamour being were initiated. The CCTV footage of the place of occurrence was procured, and the accused Khushiram and Vikas. The petitioners were arrested on 22.05.2026. They and got recovered bamboo sticks used by them in the occurrence as well as an Activa vehicle. They also got demarcated the place petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in this case. They were not named in the FIR. No accused Sunil ve to be given the same benefit. Their antecedents are clean. No useful purpose would be served by detaining them in custody anymore as the trial will take time to AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.27 13:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-33317- 5. Per con consideration the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, they do not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned co for the parties at considerable length. 7. The petitioners, by forming membership of an unlawful with the co-accused, are grievous injuries to the complainant. The allegations make out a case against the petitioners. However, they have been in custody since 22nd May 2026. The trial will take time to conclude as no prosecution witness has been examined so far. The antecedents of the petitioners are clean. settled proposition of law is that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Pre incarceration should not be replica of post the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or puniti this Court is of the opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioners at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bai surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. -2026 (O&M) 3 Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, they do not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned co for the parties at considerable length. The petitioners, by forming membership of an unlawful accused, are alleged to have voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries to the complainant. The allegations make out a case against the petitioners. However, they have been in custody since 22nd May 2026. The trial will take time to conclude as no prosecution witness has been examined so far. The antecedents of the petitioners are clean. ition of law is that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Pre incarceration should not be replica of post-conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioners at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail subject to their furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. , learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, they do not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel The petitioners, by forming membership of an unlawful assembly alleged to have voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries to the complainant. The allegations make out a prima facie case against the petitioners. However, they have been in custody since 22nd May 2026. The trial will take time to conclude as no prosecution witness has been examined so far. The antecedents of the petitioners are clean. The well ition of law is that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Pre-trial conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be ve. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioners at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioners l subject to their furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial , learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, they unsel assembly alleged to have voluntarily caused simple as well as prima facie case against the petitioners. However, they have been in custody since 22nd May 2026. The trial will take time to conclude as no prosecution witness has The well trial conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be ve. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioners at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioners l subject to their furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.27 13:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-33317- 8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner. 9. Since the main petition has been any, is rendered infructuous. 26.08.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 4 It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner. Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner. allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) Yes/No It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case allowed, pending application, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.27 13:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.