CRM-M-2135-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 214 CRM-M-2135-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 21.04.2025 ABHI DOGRA ....Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present : Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rajinder Singh Bhatta, DAG Punjab. ***** SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL) By way of present petition filed under Section 482 BNSS, petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR (Annexure P-1) as under: FIR No. Dated Sections Police Station 123 20.10.2024 118(1), 115(2), 3(5) and 126(2) BNS; 117(2) BNS added later on Sujanpur, District Pathankot 2. It is inter alia contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He contends that there is unexplained delay of seven days in lodging of the FIR and story put forth by the complainant is concocted and the injuries sustained by the complainant are self inflicted, just to implicate the petitioner in this case. He submits that the petitioner is ready to join SANDAL SHARMA 2025.04.29 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-2135-2025 (O&M) -2- investigation and has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel while referring to the reply submitted by State has assailed these arguments on the ground that the petitioner gave datar blow on the left thigh of the complainant and thereafter gave two blows which hit on his left and right side of the head with intent to kill him. Hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required and prayed for dismissal of the bail petition. 4. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record, it transpires that as per the case of prosecution, the instant FIR has been registered on the complaint moved by Sangram Singh to the effect that on 13.10.2024 at about 10:00 PM he along with his wife was returning from his sister’s village. The wife of the complainant saw the petitioner along with 2- 3 unidentified persons and the petitioner threw a stone on their car, which hit on the backside of the car and the sister and mother of the petitioner hurled abuses. Thereafter, the complainant and his friend Ajay Sharma went to fetch Limca for his wife, where the petitioner along with Sandeep Dogra, Rakesh Dogra and Salil Lalotra were standing and in the meantime, the petitioner gave datar blow to the complainant which hit on his left thigh. Thereafter the petitioner continuously gave two blows with intention to kill, which hit on his left and right side of head. Accused Rakesh Dogra also gave two blows of datar which hit on his left arm and accused Sandeep Dogra took datar from his father and gave datar blow on the middle finger of left hand of the complainant. It is also pertinent to mention here that as per reply filed by the State, it has been specifically stated that the petitioner, in order SANDAL SHARMA 2025.04.29 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-2135-2025 (O&M) -3- to protect himself get arranged a forged and fabricated MLR in order to get registered a cross case and had inflicted the injuries upon himself. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to recover the weapon used in the commission of offence. 5. Accordingly, considering the nature and gravity of offence, it is observed that no case is made out in favour of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail, as a consequence, the petition is hereby dismissed. 6. Any observation made above shall not be construed as opinion of this Court on the merits of the case. (SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE 21.04.2025 S.Sharma(syr) i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No SANDAL SHARMA 2025.04.29 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment