CRM-M-39236-2026 - 1 - (CNR NO: PHHC011156362026) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 109 CRM-M-39236-2026 Decided on : 20.07.2026 Azad Singh @ Yaddi . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Ms. Priya Singhi, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manjinder S. Bhullar, DAG, Punjab. **** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:- Name & age of Petitioner(s) FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station District Azad Singh @ Yaddi, aged about 24 years 47 12.05.2026 S. 109, 115(2), 118(1) 126(2), 190 and 191(3) of BNS, 2023 (erstwhile S. 307, 323, 324, 339, 149, 147 of IPC) Bakhshiwala Patiala 2. The occurrence in question is alleged to have taken place on 11.05.2026, pursuant to which complainant Ashok Siraswal got the FIR in question registered with the allegations that injuries had been caused to his 17-year-old son, namely, Puneet Siraswal. As per the allegations, injured Puneet Siraswal, aged about 17 years and a student of 10+1 class, was returning to his house on his Honda Activa scooter bearing registration No. PB11-DC-1383 at about 07:35 p.m., when he was intercepted by 4-5 boys travelling on motorcycles and in a car. It is alleged that petitioner Azad Singh @ Yaddi, armed with a kirch, JAWALA RAM 2026.07.21 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-39236-2026 - 2 - inflicted stab injuries on the left as well as the right side of the abdomen of injured Puneet. 3. It is further alleged that co-accused Arvinder Singh @ Ravi, armed with a knife (kirch), inflicted blows on the left arm and left thigh of Puneet. Another blow aimed at his head was warded off by the injured with his left hand, resulting in an injury on the upper portion of his left hand. Upon the complainant and the injured raising an alarm, all the assailants fled from the spot along with their respective weapons. The motive attributed in the FIR is that, in March 2026, there had been some dispute between the complainant's son and the aforesaid accused, on account of which the present occurrence allegedly took place and injuries were inflicted with knives/daggar/kirch. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions on behalf of petitioner–Azad Singh @ Yaddi, argues that on account of prior enmity and political rivalry, petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. On the said premise, he prays for grant of the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel, who appears on advance notice and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent–State, submits that the injured, a 17-year-old boy, suffered a total of five injuries, out of which two stab injuries on the abdomen are specifically attributed to the present petitioner. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the instant anticipatory bail petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material available on record. 7. All the aspects highlighted by learned counsel for the petitioner and noticed here-above shall be matter for consideration during the course of trial. However, at this stage, considering nature of the allegations, particularly that the injured is a minor boy aged about 17 years and that petitioner is specifically attributed with inflicting two stab injuries on the abdomen of the victim, this Court is not inclined to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction of granting anticipatory bail. Prima facie, allegations attributed to the petitioner are serious in JAWALA RAM 2026.07.21 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-39236-2026 - 3 - nature. The injuries allegedly inflicted on a minor victim on a vital part of the body cannot be lightly ignored while considering a prayer for anticipatory bail. In view of the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. The Investigating Officer concerned shall proceed further in accordance with law. Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE July 20, 2026 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2026.07.21 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document