CRM-M-34836-2026 -1- 208 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-34836-2026 Date of Decision: 07.07.2026 Sukhbir Singh …Petitioner vs. State of Haryana …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Arun Luthra, Advocate with Ms. Mehak Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Sajal Bansal, Advocate with Ms. Jahnvi Juneja, Advocate for the complainant. *** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973), with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail to him in case FIR No 0311 dated 28.05.2026, under Sections 110, 115, 190, 191 (3), 351 (3) and subsequent added Section 117 (2) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (Sections 308, 323, 149, 148, 506 and 325 of Indian Penal Code 1860), at Police Station Kundli, District Sonepat (Annexure P-1). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that as per the prosecution version, Ankush and Chintu were carrying iron rods and had caused injuries on the head of Satish, injured. Even injuries to Ravinder were also attributed to other co-accused/non-applicants. Learned counsel further HEMLATA 2026.07.08 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34836-2026 2- submits that as per the prosecution case, the petitioner had caught hold of Satish and Ravinder and had given fist blows to both of them and the injuries attributed to them are simple in nature. He further submits that four other co- accused, namely, Preeti, Krishna, Babli and Bharpai have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the trial Court and the custody of the petitioner may not be required. Learned counsel also referred to the MLRs (Annexure P-4) to contend that even the petitioner had suffered two injuries on his person. Even Krishna and Babli on the side of the petitioners were also injured and the question of aggressor is yet to be decided by the trial Court. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the accused had caused serious injuries on the person of Satish and Ravinder. He submits that due to the injury on the head of Satish, the offence under Section 110 of BNS has been added in the present case. Apart from that, the injuries suffered by Ravinder has been declared to be grievous in nature. However, learned State counsel admits that these injuries are not attributed to the present petitioner, rather, these injuries were caused by his co-accused. Learned State counsel further admits that the petitioner is the first offender and was never involved in any other criminal activity. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It is not in dispute that as per the prosecution, the petitioner is attributed only simple injury on the persons of Satish and Ravinder. Moreover, four other co-accused, namely, Preeti, Krishna, Babli and Bharpai have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the trial Court and the HEMLATA 2026.07.08 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34836-2026 -3- custody of the petitioner may not be required. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation in the present case. 6. Without commenting any further on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted concession of anticipatory bail, 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. (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 07.07.2026 JUDGE hemlata Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HEMLATA 2026.07.08 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document