CRM-M-29797-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 207 CRM-M-29797-2026 Date of decision: 28th July, 2026 Shahdeen ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Vishal Munjal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. *** MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):- The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No. 152 dated 23.09.2025 registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 126(2) and 191(3), 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) (Section 118(2) of BNS added later on) at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur. 2.. The aforementioned FIR has been registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Muhammad Hanif alleging therein that on 18.09.2025, he was going towards his village on his motorcycle while carrying a milk drum. When he had reached near village Haveli, suddenly one Swift vehicle bearing registration No. PB-04-JM-6186 came there from the PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.28 13:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29797-2026 -2- opposite side. The driver of the said vehicle hit the motorcycle of the complainant, due to which he fell down. The petitioner accompanied by co- accused Suleman alighted from the said vehicle. They were armed with weapons. Accused Suleman opened an attack upon the complainant by hitting him with a Kirpan, thereby causing injuries on his head and forehead. The petitioner struck a blow with a gandasa, thereby causing an injury on his right shoulder. The other assailants also caused injuries to him with their respective weapons. On the rescue alarm being raised by him, some persons gathered there, whereupon the assailants fled away. He was rushed to the hospital. By alleging that on account of previous enmity with the assailants, they had assaulted him, he prayed for taking action in the matter. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated and are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail, which was dismissed by the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide order dated 17.12.2025. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. One injury with a gandasa on the right bicep of the complainant has been falsely attributed to him. The said injury has not been opined to be serious in nature. The grievous injury as sustained by the victim has been attributed to co-accused Suleman and not to him. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be extended the benefit of pre-arrest bail. PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.28 13:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29797-2026 -3- 4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He is not a man of clean antecedents, as an FIR had earlier been registered against him at Police Station Mehtiana, District Hoshiarpur, and he had been declared a proclaimed person. He was specifically named in the FIR. He along with the co-accused had voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries to the victim. His custodial interrogation is must. There is no exceptional or extraordinary circumstance for grant of anticipatory bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 6. The petitioner is alleged to have formed a membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of the common object thereof, is further alleged to have voluntarily assaulted the victim and caused injuries to him. The victim had sustained simple as well as grievous injuries. Though the grievous injury has not been specifically attributed to the petitioner, however, his complicity in the commission of the aforementioned offences stands prima facie established. The victim had sustained an injury caused by a sharp-edged weapon over his left knee and on account thereof, an offence under Section 118(2) of the BNS has also been added in the present case. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner might not be required but even otherwise, the petitioner has failed to make out any exceptional or extraordinary circumstance for grant of pre-arrest bail to him. Taking into PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.28 13:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29797-2026 -4- consideration the fact that the petitioner is involved in three other criminal cases, one of which is of a similar nature, that he has been linked with the subject offence with the aid of Section 190 of the BNS as well and that his active complicity stands prima facie established, this Court is of the considered opinion that he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of pre- arrest bail. In view of the above discussed facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 7. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 8. Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. [MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 28th July, 2026 Parveen Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.28 13:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document