CRM-M-32951-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 120 CRM-M-32951-2025 DATE OF DECISION: 20.06.2025 VIJAY RANA ALIAS VIJAY CHAUHAN AND ANOTHER ...PETITIONERS Versus STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners(s). Mr. S.S. Pannu, Addl. A.G, Haryana. *** SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL) 1. Prayer This petition has been filed under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 for grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case F.I.R. No.790 dated 22.10.2024 under Sections 118 (1), 3 (5) and 351 (5), later on added Section 110 of BNS Act, 2023 registered at Police Station Karnal City, District Karnal (Annexure P-1). 2. Prosecution story, set up in the present case as per the version in the FIR reads as under :- ‘At this time, it is entered that ASI Balwan No.936/Karnal present in the police station that one document written by HC Gurpal Singh No.1074/Karnal Police Chowki Sadar Bazar Karnal through HG Rishipal no.241 received in the police station, the description of which is as To the Chowki Incharge, Sadar Bazar, Karnal Respected Sir, it is requested that | Biru S/o Nihal Chand Rio Gali No.3, Janakpuri Karnal. Tonight at about Anuradha 2025.06.20 06:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32951-2025 2 09:30 PM, I had went to the shop for taking milk. That Vijay Rana S/o Narender Rana resident of Gali No.1 came in the street and started beating me and thereafter Narender Rana came from behind and caught hold me and Vijay stabbed knife into my chest and threatened me to kill. Went away to their house alongwith knife. My relative Gaurav S/o Govinder resident of Sadar Bazar alongwith my mother Raj Kumari got me admitted in Civil Hospital. Legal action may be taken. Sd/- Biru 8607590890.’ 3. Contentions On behalf of the petitioners Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the petitioners have no concern with the allegations set out in the FIR. He further submits that investigation in this case was done by IO Gurpal Singh and during the investigation statements of petitioners, locality persons and the complainant were recorded and it was found that the petitioners are innocent but later on another police official namely Krishan was transferred in the concerned police station in the place of IO Gurpal Singh who again carried out the untraced report filed by IO Gurpal Singh. He again conducted enquiry and as per the directions, the form concerning the call detail records (CDR) of the accused's mobile number was duly completed and forwarded to the Cyber Cell. Upon receipt, the CDR was examined. On 03.01.2025, both the complainant and accused appeared for inquiry, during which H.C. Gurpal Singh conducted the interrogation. The complainant’s statement was recorded under Section 180 BNSS, uploaded on the E- Evidence App, and Certificate No. 634-C was obtained and appended Anuradha 2025.06.20 06:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32951-2025 3 to the case file. The undersigned Investigating Officer, Inspector Incharge of the concerned police station, conducted a verified investigation. Based on the investigation and the complainant's statement under Section 180 BNSS, the allegations made in the FIR against Vijay (s/o Narender Rana, r/o Janakpur, Karnal) and Narender Rana (s/o Naseeb Singh, r/o Gali No.1, Janakpuri, Karnal) were found to be false. Accordingly, H.C. Gurpal Singh was directed to identify the actual perpetrators. On 21.02.2025, an opinion regarding the X-ray of the injured was obtained from Kalpana Chawla Hospital, Karnal. Medical records confirmed that the injured received treatment on OPD basis. Medical opinion noted one sharp, simple injury as per MLR. As of now, no leads have been found regarding the identity of the actual accused who indulged in the fight. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes that the petitioners are ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating officer. Notice of motion. On behalf of the State Learned State Counsel appearing on advance notice on instructions from Investigating officer is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. 4. Analysis Keeping in view the above submissions made by counsel for the petitioners to the effect that the petitioners are ready to join the investigation as and when called for, moreoover, no other concrete material has been produced by learned State Counsel to oppose the Anuradha 2025.06.20 06:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32951-2025 4 bail, this Court finds no reason to deny the petitioners the concession of anticipatory bail, wherein the petitioners have bona fide intentions and are willing to join the investigation and cooperate for furtherance of the same so that the final report can be submitted by the Investigating Agency within the stipulated time period. 5. Relief Hence, in view of the admitted set of circumstances before this Court, the petitioners are hereby directed to be released on anticipatory bail subject to their joining investigation and reporting to the Investigating Officer concerned within a period of one week from today, on furnishing of personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioners shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS of which are reproduced below :- ‘When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including- (i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; (iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section.’ Anuradha 2025.06.20 06:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32951-2025 5 However, it is made clear that in case the petitioners does not comply with the aforesaid direction of joining the investigation within one week, the order passed by this Court today shall automatically stand cancelled. The petition in the aforesaid terms stand allowed. (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) JUDGE 20.06.2025 anuradha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Anuradha 2025.06.20 06:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document