CRM-M- IN 120 Dharamvee Vers State of Pun CORAM: Present: AARADHN 1. 04.09.2025 BNS, at P petition for 2. noticed her Police Stat filing a c 29.8.2025, had been s wanted to t Salu, Sabb they were petitioner) also accom -11367-2026 -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGA amveer @ Sajan Versus of Punjab AM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AA Mr. Jasbir Singh Mohri, Advo Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, DAG, P **** ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) Petitioner, who is an accuse .2025, registered against him under S , at Police Station Phillaur, District ion for grant of anticipatory bail. Relevant facts as emerging fr ed hereinbelow:- Rahul, son of Lakhwinder Ku Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar, a complaint pointing therein tha 025, Sajan, son of Meeta called him en spreading rumours about them to talk to him. Consequently, he (c abbu, son of Anda reached near B ere confronted by Meeta and his t ner) and Mukaljit. All three were ccompanied by Ravi, Krishan, Gag 1- PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH CRM-M-11367-2026 Date of Decision: 09.03.2026 …Petitioner. …Respondent. CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. Advocate for the petitioner. AG, Punjab. accused in case FIR No. 286 date nder Sections 61(2), 317(2), 191, 190 istrict Jalandhar, has filed the prese ging from the documents on record b r Kumar, resident of Ganna villag har, set the criminal law in motion b that at about 7.30/8.00 PM o him up and questioned as to why hem as also that in this context the he (c) along with his brother Sahil @ ar Bohar Tilak Karyana Store, whe his two sons, namely, Sajan (prese ere armed with ‘Datar’. They we Gagan, Deepa Nihang as also 10 .2026 dated , 190 of present cord be illage, ion by M on hy he t they hil @ where resent were 10-15 GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.15 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- other unkn to teach him was armed Mukaljit al onslaught, stomach, le On seeing reason for had occurr inflicted to to Civil Ho injuries, on with blunt authorities initiate app formal cas 317(2), 191 grant of Additional Aggrieved 3. is settled in implicated return. Fals counsel, is delay of 5 d the compla is apparent learned co -11367-2026 -2 nknown assailants. Before he (c) co h him a lesson of life time. Meeta ca rmed with ‘Datar’ inflicted a blow jit also gave a ‘Datar’ blow on his ght, he fell down. The assailants co h, legs etc. On hearing his cries o ing them, the assailants fled away. for this incident and maintained t curred between both the parties. T d to him. Family members arranged il Hospital, Phillaur. As per MLR, , one of which was with sharp ed lunt weapon. Primarily with this b ities to catch hold of all who were i appropriate proceedings. On the ba case vide FIR No. 286 dated 04.0 , 191, 190 of BNS, at Police Station P Apprehending his arrest, peti t of pre-arrest bail. The same cam tional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, ieved of which, the present petition ha Learned counsel for the petiti tled in Dubai and was visiting India to icated in the present case with an ulteri False implication of the petitioner a sel, is further apparent from the fact of 5 days in lodging the FIR. The in omplainant party to concoct facts to s parent that a coloured version has bee ed counsel contends that in fact t 2- c) could react, Meeta exhorted othe ta caught hold of him, Sajan (P), wh blow with the same on his left arm n his right ear. As a result of th ts continued hitting him on his bac es of pain, persons started gatherin ay. Complainant also pointed out th ed that in the past minor altercatio . To level scores, injuries have bee nged for a vehicle and rushed him ( LR, complainant had suffered seve p edged weapon and the others we is backdrop, he requested the polic ere involved in the incident as also e basis of said complaint and MLR, 04.09.2025, was registered us 61(2 tion Phillaur, District Jalandhar. etitioner moved an application fo e came to be dismissed by learne , vide order dated 08.01.202 tion has been filed for grant of bail. petitioner submits that petitioner, wh ndia to meet his family, has been false ulterior motive, to create hurdles in ioner and other accused, as per learne e fact that there has been unexplaine The intervening period was misused b ts to suit their convenience and thus, as been portrayed. Elaborating furthe fact the complainant party were th others ), who t arm. of this back, ering. ut the cation e been im (c) seven were police o to LR, a 61(2), tion for learned 1.2026. , who falsely his learned plained used by thus, it further, ere the GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.15 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- aggressors serious inju registered a counsel tha grudge aga 16.12.2025 registered a 190 of BNS party are ha various cri contends to delicate me called for b 4. State couns injuries. P assigned to given a blo been declar that presenc weapon us whereabout accused M -11367-2026 -3 essors and had unleashed brutal att us injuries. Based on the statemen tered against complainant party. It is sel that talks of compromise were in ge against petitioner, he was again .2025. Based on his (P’s) statement, tered against complainant and others f BNS. In the said incident, petitioner It is further submission of le are habitual drug addicts and hard co us criminal cases. Primarily with nds to take a lenient view in favour o ate medical condition is willing to jo d for by the IO. Per contra, while opposing the counsel submits that in the incident c ies. Present petitioner was named in ned to him. Complainant alleged that a blow with the same on his left arm declared to be ‘Grievous in nature’. resence of petitioner is needed for cus on used by him in the commission eabouts of other accused, who have no It is the further submission sed Meeta, who had exhorted oth 3- tal attack in which Mukaljit suffere tement of Mukaljit, a DDR has bee . It is further the submission of learne ere in progress. However, bearing again assaulted by complainant o ment, FIR No. 8 dated 08.01.2026 wa others u/s 115(2), 118, 351(2), 191(3 titioner suffered serious head injuries. n of learned counsel that complaina ard core criminals, who are involved with this backdrop, learned couns vour of petitioner, who despite being to join the investigation as and whe ing the request for grant of bail, learne dent complainant suffered as many as med in the FIR. A specific role wa d that being armed with ‘Datar’, he wa ft arm by petitioner. The said injury ha ure’. Learned counsel further contend for custodial interrogation to recover th ission of offence as also to know th ave not been arrested. of learned State counsel that co ed others to unleash an attack o suffered as been learned earing a nant on 026 was 191(3), uries. plainant olved in counsel being in d when learned y as 7 ole was , he was jury has ontends over the now the that co- ack on GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.15 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- complainan injury has b for delay in his first ver if at all any parties hav complainan the Doctor same. In th learned Sta made out. 5. documents 6. the counse Supreme C application 7. The State Supreme C ought not t 8. been notic Specific ro relevant tim -11367-2026 -4 lainant, is not similarly situated as pre y has been attributed. It is also the submission of lea elay in lodging the FIR has also been irst version given to the police authori any, is a matter to be decided by have led their respective evidence lainant stands corroborated with the octor of a Government Hospital and . In the factual backdrop of the case a ed State counsel contends that no ca out. Dismissal of the petition has been Heard learned counsel for th ments on record. Before expressing any opinio ounsels, it would be appropriate to r eme Court, wherein the factors to be k cation for grant of anticipatory bail, ha In Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ tate of Maharashtra and another, eme Court held that “Anticipatory ba not to be granted in a routine manne Factual aspect of the case le noticed in para 2 of the order. Pe ific role has been assigned to him. A ant time, petitioner was armed with 4- as present petitioner, to whom grievou of learned State counsel that the reaso o been explained by the complainant uthorities. Further, the effect of dela y learned trial Court, after both th idence. At this stage, the version o th the medico legal report prepared b and there being nothing to doubt t case and documents brought on recor no case for grant of pre-arrest bail as been prayed for. for the parties and have perused th opinion on submissions raised by bo te to refer to the judgment of Hon’b o be kept in mind while dealing with a ail, have been discussed. etty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v her, 2025 AIR SC 3375, the Hon’b ry bail is an exceptional remedy an nner.” ase leading to the lodging of FIR ha Petitioner was named in the FIR him. According to complainant, at th with ‘Datar’ and had inflicted a blo rievous e reason inant in f delay, both the rsion of ared by oubt the record, t bail is sed the by both Hon’ble with an av vs. Hon’ble y and FIR has he FIR. t, at the a blow GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.15 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- with the sam nature’. As reason for any case, w during trial version of to doubt the petitioner is of offence, been arrest injuries in registered a 351(2), 191 take a len hereinabov depravity o grant of pre 9. 09.03.2026 gbs -11367-2026 -5 the same on his (c) left arm. This injur e’. As has been rightly submitted by n for delay in lodging the FIR has b ase, whatever would be the effect of g trial when the parties lead their res on of complainant, stands corroborate ubt the same. The Court is of the opin ioner is needed to effect recovery of th fence, as also to know the whereabout arrested till date. Further, the fact ies in another incident arising out tered at his instance against complai 2), 191(3), 190 of BNS, would also no a lenient view in his favour. A nabove, petitioner has failed to m avity or hardship in his favour entitling t of pre-arrest bail. The petition being devoid of a .2026 Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable 5- is injury was declared to be ‘Grievous ted by learned State counsel, though th has been mentioned in the FIR, but ect of delay, would be appreciated on eir respective evidence. At this stag borated with MLR; their being nothin e opinion that custodial interrogation o y of the weapon used in the commissio eabouts of other accused, who have e fact that petitioner himself suffere out of FIR No.8 dated 08.01.202 mplainant and others u/s 115(2), 11 lso not be a ground sufficient enough r. As a result of discussion mad make out a case of exception ntitling him this extra ordinary relief o id of any merit is hereby dismissed. (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No evous in ugh the , but in ted only is stage, nothing ation of mission not suffered 01.2026 2), 118, ough to n made eptional relief of NEY) GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.15 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document