CRM-M-37195-2026 1 105 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37195-2026 Date of Decision: 10.07.2026 MAHIPAL .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present: Mr.Sanpreet Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. **** H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS (438 Cr.P.C) for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 115 dated 16.06.2026 under Sections 191(3), 190,115(2), 351(2), 221, 121(1), 132, 324(4) of BNS (Sections 156,149,323,506,186,332,353,427 of IPC) and 21-B of NDPS Act registered at Police Station Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with his co-accused, formed an unlawful assembly and, in furtherance of their common object, intentionally and deliberately attacked the police party, which had lawfully apprehended an accused, namely Rajinder, the brother of the petitioner, and obstructed the police officials from discharging their lawful duties. It is alleged that the accused persons succeeded in forcibly rescuing Rajinder from the lawful custody of the police party while pelting RENU RAWAT 2026.07.10 17.05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-37195-2026 2 bricks and stones and assaulting the police officials with dandas and bindas. The petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR as one of the assailants and participants in the unlawful assembly. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the houses of the petitioner and the other co-accused were demolished by the Administration, in respect whereof civil suits have already been instituted. It is contended that although the petitioner was present at the spot, he did not inflict any injury upon any police official. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and shall fully cooperate with the Investigating Agency as and when required. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jangra, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. He vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the petitioner, along with the other co-accused, actively participated in the commission of the alleged offence and used criminal force to deter public servants from discharging their lawful duties. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the specific accusation that he was a member of an unlawful RENU RAWAT 2026.07.10 17.05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-37195-2026 3 assembly which obstructed the police officials in the discharge of their lawful duties and forcibly rescued the accused from their lawful custody, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for the grant of the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner appears to be necessary for a fair, proper and effective investigation. Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. 8. It is, however, clarified that any observation made herein is confined solely to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (H.S.GREWAL) 10.07.2026 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No RENU RAWAT 2026.07.10 17.05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh