1 CRM-M-32349-2025 1 203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-32349-2025 Decided on: 20.08.2025 Ajeet Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of UT Chandigarh …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Vivek Kathuria, Advocate and Mr. Rajat Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Viren Sibal, APP, UT Chandigarh. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 51 01.04.2025 West, Sector 11, Chandigarh 115(2), 126(2), 109, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2) of BNS 2023 1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail. 2. In paragraph 10 of the bail petition, the petitioner declares the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station 1 121 17.08.1997 380 IPC Sector 11, Chandigarh 2 92 04.06.2019 147, 148, 323, 341, 506 IPC Sector 11, Chandigarh 3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: “That the FIR was registered on a complaint submitted by Shubham, son of Rakesh, who was talking to Shubham @ Koda infront of his juggi and then Nitin @ Koda, along with his father and brother, and 4-5 other ANJU RANI 2025.08.22 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-32349-2025 2 person came and started having an altercation with Shubham @ Koda and later they encircled Shubham, Son of Rakesh and Shubham @ Koda, and then Nitin @ Koda took out chapar from his pants and started giving blows to Shubham, son of Rakesh and Shubham @ Koda. Later, the father and brother of Nitin also started giving blows to both of them by means of dandas, brick, bats, legs and fist blows causing injury to both Shubham, son of Rakesh and Shubham @ Koda.” 4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. Counsel further submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he was not present at the spot as reflected from the video in pen drive (Ex.P2). 5. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. REASONING: 6. Vide order dated 18.07.2025, petitioner was granted interim bail, which is continuing till date. 7. There is no specific attribution to petitioner and he is not main accused, moreover, per video he was not at the scene of crime, however authenticity of the same yet to be verified, but at this stage, petitioner is entitled to bail. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage, but is analyzing it for the stage of anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration. 8. Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre-trial incarceration at this stage. 9. The petitioner was granted interim protection and during the interregnum, there is no allegation that he had intimidated the witnesses, hampered the investigation, or failed ANJU RANI 2025.08.22 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 3 CRM-M-32349-2025 3 to join the trial. 10. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. As such, interim order dated 18.07.2025 is made absolute, subject to the following conditions. (i) The petitioner shall not enter the property, workplace, and residence of the victim until the statements of all non-official and informal witnesses in the trial are recorded. This Court is imposing this condition to rule out any attempt by the accused to incapacitate, influence, or cause any discomfort to the victim. Reference be made to Vikram Singh v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 All SCR (Crl.) 458); and Aparna Bhatt v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021:INSC:192, 2021 SCC Online SC 230. (ii) Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the victim, his family members and incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanction]. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days of the uploading of this order on the official webpage of this Court and inform the Investigator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and reclaim them in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense. 11. The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court holds that “The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that ANJU RANI 2025.08.22 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 4 CRM-M-32349-2025 4 they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed.” 12. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above and interim order dated 18.07.2025 is made absolute. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 20.08.2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No. ANJU RANI 2025.08.22 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh