222200006666 CCCCRRRRM M M M----M M M M----22224444444477770000----2222000022226666 BBBBHHHHOOOOLLLLEEEE AAAALLLLIIIIAAAASSSS RRRROOOOHHHHIIIITTTT VVVV////SSSS SSSSTTTTAAAATTTTEEEE OOOOFFFF HHHHAAAARRRRYYYYAAAANNNNAAAA Present:- Mr. Bijender Dhankhar, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** Petitioner prays for pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 0266 dated 26.09.2025 under Section 115, 190, 191(3), 308(2), 351(3), 110, 61(2) and 117(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding Sections 323, 149, 146, 384, 506, 308, 12-B and 325 of IPC, 1860), registered at Police Station, Hathin, District Palwal, (Annexure P/1). Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner has been wrongly named in the FIR, and it has been wrongly mentioned that the petitioner was carrying a hammer in his hand and had given blows to the complainant, which landed on the hand of the complainant. He further submits that during the course of investigation, the CCTV footage of the incident was collected and it stands established that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence. Now the police has filed a challan against his co-accused and it has been alleged that the petitioner was the main conspirator in the present case. Learned counsel has further referred to various evidence to submit that in the present case even the hammer has been recovered from Bunty, co-accused, and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be required. A short reply by way of an affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Palwal, has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State and the same is taken on record. AMIT RANA 2026.07.07 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgement/order CRM-M-24470-2026 -2- On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner by submiting that even though the petitioner was shown to be present at the place of the fight, however, during investigation it has been discovered that he was not present at the place of incident, rather he had conspired with other accused to cause injuries. Learned State counsel also submits that the hammer which was allegedly used in the commission of crime by Bunty co-accused has been recovered from him. He further submits that the FIRs were also registered against the petitioner and being a habitual offender, he is not entitled to concession of anticipatory bail. In response to the submissions made by the learned State counsel, learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that two more criminal cases were registered against him in the past; however, the petitioner is on bail in both the cases and it can never be served as a ground for rejection of his anticipatory bail, as allegations against him have been found to be false. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. At this stage, without commenting on the merits, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation. In the event of arrest, he shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of arresting/investigating officer subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438 (2) B.N.S.S. List 11.08.2026. ((((NNNN....SSSS....SSSSHHHHEEEEKKKKHHHHAAAAW W W WAAAATTTT)))) 00006666....00007777....2222000022226666 JJJJUUUUDDDDGGGGEEEE aaaammmmiiiitttt rrrraaaannnnaaaa AMIT RANA 2026.07.07 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgement/order