IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 208 CRM-M-36048-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.09.2025. Harpreet Singh ...Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent. *** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR ....... Present: Mr. Japjit Singh Johal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Navdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Jasraj Singh, Advocate for the complainant. *** SUKHVINDER KAUR , J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.88 dated 20.05.2025 under Sections 110, 115(2), 117(2), 351(2), 191(3) and 190 of BNS, registered at Police Station Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. As per prosecution case, complainant Harjinder Singh made a complaint to the police alleging therein that on 08.05.2025, when he had parked his Activa on the side of his field, a car bearing No.PB-08-8848 came there. The petitioner along with the co-accused armed with iron rods alighted from the car, whereas co-accused Jashan and Aman armed with iron rods came on a motorcycle. Harpreet Singh @ Haria, exhorted and gave two rod blows to complainant which hit on his right wrist and head. The KOMAL 2025.09.26 18:24 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRM-M-36048-2025 (O&M) -2- petitioner gave a blow with iron rod which hit on forehead of the complainant. Gaurav gave blow along with iron pipe to complainant which hit his left knee and as a result thereof, the complainant fell down and then petitioner gave iron rod blow on his forehead. Gaurav gave another iron pipe blow on the chest of the complainant and Jashan gave iron pipe blows on the person of the complainant, which hit him on his thumb and back side of his right hand. Aman and other 2-3 unknown persons also inflicted blows to the complainant. When the complainant raised alarm, seeing the gathering, all the accused persons ran away from the spot along with their respective weapons. Hence, the present FIR was registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is delay in registration of the FIR. As per MLR dated 19.05.2025, the petitioner had also suffered injuries and the present FIR is a counter blast to the same. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The injuries attributed to him are simple in nature and there is no opinion of any doctor indicating that any injury is dangerous to life. He prayed that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and he is ready and willing to join the investigation and the present petition be allowed. Learned State counsel has opposed the petition and submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as he along with the other co-accused had attacked upon the complainant and inflicted injuries to him and as such he is not entitled to the concession of bail. Heard. The petitioner has been attributed two specific injuries in the present case. Injury No.l inflicted on the forehead of the complainant with the iron rod, has been declared simple in nature, while injury No.10 KOMAL 2025.09.26 18:24 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRM-M-36048-2025 (O&M) -3- allegedly inflicted near the right ankle of the complainant has been declared to be grievous in nature, but the said injury is not on the vital part of the body. It is a case of version and cross version. It is yet to be determined that who was the aggressor party. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for any purpose and no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on his furnishing bail/surety bonds, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/ Investigating Officer, subject to the conditions, as provided under Section 482(2) of BNSS. It will be open for the Investigating Officer to call the petitioner to join investigation, if so required, by issuing a written notice in this regard and he shall abide by the conditions mentioned in Section 482(2) of the BNSS. However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail application. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE 25.09.2025. Komal Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/ No Whether reportable? : Yes/ No KOMAL 2025.09.26 18:24 I attest to the accuracy of this document