REEMA SAINI 2026.07.07 19:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-32815 of 2026 (O&M) -2- 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegations in the FIR were false, fabricated and motivated. Petitioner had been falsely implicated due to previous animosity. Mere scuffle had taken place between the parties and during the course thereof, complainant lost balance and fell down. The injuries allegedly suffered by the complainant were matter of investigation and trial and attribution thereof to the petitioner was seriously disputed. Learned counsel further submits that co-accused namely Satnam Singh and Rajpreet had since been allowed anticipatory bail. Petitioner, who was ready and willing to join investigation, too deserved the concession of bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail arguing that petitioner was the main accused, to whom the injury with sharp edged weapon, on right forehead of the complainant was attributed. His custodial interrogation was required for just and proper investigation. Further, his case was not at par with co-accused Charanpreet Singh, who was a juvenile and accused Rajpreet Singh, who was not granted anticipatory bail but his petition was disposed of being pre-mature. 5. Petitioner is alleged to be the main perpetrator. His case is not at par with co-accused Charanpreet Singh, who is a juvenile. Rajpreet Singh was not granted concession of anticipatory bail. The injury suffered by complainant-Manraj with sword i.e. incised wound on the right side of forehead, which has been declared grievous attracting the offence under Section 118(2) BNS, has been attributed to the petitioner. Personal liberty of an accused has to be balanced with the right of police to effectively investigate the matter. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be REEMA SAINI 2026.07.07 19:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-32815 of 2026 (O&M) -3- necessitated for effecting recoveries and for a fair, just and proper investigation. Grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, at this stage, would adversely effect process of investigation which is not permissible. There being no extraordinary circumstance to extend benefit of anticipatory bail, the petition stands dismissed. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 07.07.2026 reema Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No REEMA SAINI 2026.07.07 19:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh