Aslam Khan v. State Of Haryana
CRM-M No.8430 of 2026 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M No.8430 of 2026 Date of decision : 6.3.2026 Date of uploading : 7.3.2026 Aslam Khan .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Aazam Khan, Advocate, for Mr. M.D. Khan, Advocate, for the petitioner Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Senior DAG, Haryana --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1.
On 12.2.2026, the following order was passed: 'This is the first petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 0015 dated 22.01.2026, registered under Sections 190(1), 191(2), 115(2), 333, 351(3) and 324(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Pinagwan, District Nuh (Haryana). Briefly stated, the present FIR No. 0015 dated 22.01.2026 has been registered at Police Station Pinagwan, District Nuh, under Sections 190(1), 191(2), 115(2), 333, 351(3) and 324(5) of the BNS, 2023, on the complaint of Saddam Hussain. As per the allegations, on 21.01.
2026 at about 7:00 PM, the petitioner Aslam along with co-accused Sahil, Sufiyan, Shahid @ Ali, Faisal and 10-12 other persons allegedly came to the complainant's mobile shop at Dhana Mode, Pingawan, armed with sticks, rods and other weapons, entered the shop, caused injuries to the complainant and his brother Aaqib, damaged the shop and the complainant's Verna car bearing No. HR-30AB-2750, and allegedly looted ₹3,20,000/- and 10/11 mobile phones. However, during police verification and on the basis of MLR, three simple injuries were found on Aaqib Hussain, and it was noted that no robbery of money or mobile phones and no illegal weapon was foundduring investigation.
CRM-M No.8430 of 2026 -2petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and no specific role or overt act has been attributed to him in the FIR. It is argued that the allegations regarding loot of money and mobile phones were found false during investigation and the injuries allegedly suffered are simple in nature. The petitioner has been named in a sweeping and omnibus manner along with several other persons. It is further submitted that co-accused Shahid @ Ali and Faisal have already been granted regular bail by the Illaqa Magistrate, nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and his custodial interrogation is not required. It is also contended that the FIR is an afterthought and has been lodged with mala fide intention to harass and pressurize the petitioner.
The earlier anticipatory bail application filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh, was dismissed on 09.02.2026 without properly appreciating these aspects. The petitioner is ready to join investigate on and undertakes to abide by any condition imposed by this Court. Notice of motion.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Mr. Nasir Jamal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and has filed power of attorney.
Learned State counsel, assisted by counsel for the complainant, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that serious allegations of causing injuries have been levelled against the petitioner. His name figures in the FIR and, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that the injuries attributed in the present case are simple in nature and, prima facie, attract the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC (corresponding to Section 115(2) BNS, 2023). No specific grievous injury or recovery is shown to be effected from the petitioner and custodial interrogation does not appear to be necessary at this stage.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim anticipatory bail, subject to his joining the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall comply with the conditions envisaged under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
List on 06.03.2026.'
2.
Learned State counsel (on instructions) submits that pursuant to the order dated 12.2.2026, the petitioner has joined investigation and is no
CRM-M No.8430 of 2026 -3longer required for custodial interrogation. 3.
In view of the above, this Court is inclined to confirm the order dated 12.2.2026. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The interim order dated 12.2.2026, passed by this Court is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS. 4.
This order should not be treated as "blanket" order. It will not be read granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence. 5.
Liberty is reserved in favour of State/complainant to move for cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioner violates any condition stipulated under Section 482(2) of BNSS or upon showing any other sufficient cause.
6.
Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 6.3.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No