Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 68580 (PNJ)

YUVRAJ v. STATE OF PUNJAB

CRM-M/31788/2025 · 2025-06-06

Sudeepti Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-31788-2025 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 111 CRM-M-31788-2025 Date of decision: 06.06.2025 Yuvraj ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Ms. Ramandeep Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.83 dated 04.08.2024, registered under Sections 115(2), 324(4), 333, 191(3), 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Kalanaur, District Gurdaspur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the only role attributed to the petitioner is that the petitioner hit the complainant with his fist which hit on her cheek below the left eye. He further contends that petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation as and when called upon to do so. 3. Notice of motion. 4. On the asking of Court, Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State and submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are very serious in nature and therefore, he be Yogesh Mehta 2025.06.06 17:35 I agree to specified portions of this document CRM-M-31788-2025 [2] not granted the concession of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file with their able assistance. 6. A perusal of the file would show that there are serious allegations of trespassing in the house of the complainant and causing different injuries on her person. The investigation of the case is at initial stage and recovery of weapon is yet to be effected for which custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. 7. Keeping in view the gravity of the facts, no ground is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 06.06.2025 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Yogesh Mehta 2025.06.06 17:35 I agree to specified portions of this document