Indraj v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Date of Decision:- 09.03.2026 Indraj ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent (II) Kheta Ram ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present:- Mr. S.K. Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

***** SUBHAS MEHLA , J. (Oral) 1.

Both these petitions under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, have been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.415 dated 16.08.2025, registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023 (Section 109 of BNS, 2023 added later on) (Corresponding Sections 323, 324, 149, 147, 148 and 506 of IPC) at Police Station Rania, District Sirsa, Haryana.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case as no specific role has been attributed to them. It is submitted that the petitioners were not present at the

( 2 ) spot at the time of the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that the injuries sustained are simple in nature and not grievous. It is also submitted that a compromise dated 23.02.2026 (Annexure P-3) has been effected between the parties. Accordingly, learned counsel prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners as they are ready and willing to join the investigation.

3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana, accepted notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Mr. Kuldeep Bishnoi, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the injured-Mandeep and has filed power of attorney, which is taken on record. Learned counsel submitted that he has oral instructions from injured-Naresh regarding compromise. 5.

Learned State counsel, upon instructions from ASI Rajesh, opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners by submitting that the present petitioners, along with the co-accused, were armed with deadly weapons and caused seven injuries each to injured-Mandeep and injured-Naresh. It is further submitted that all the injuries were inflicted with sharp-edged weapons, i.e. Kappa, and one of the injuries was on the head, which is grievous in nature. It is also contended that the petitioners are required for custodial interrogation and for the recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence. Accordingly, learned State counsel prayed for dismissal of both the bail petitions.

6.

Heard.

( 3 ) 7.

As per the facts and circumstances of the present case and the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, particularly the role attributed to the petitioners in the commission of the offence and the manner in which the offence has been committed, as well as the injuries inflicted on the vital part of the body i.e. head. In view of the gravity of offence, and requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioners for a complete and effective investigation, this Court is not inclined to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

8.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasised the importance of custodial interrogation in case titled as 'CBI Vs. Anil Sharma, 1997 AIR Supreme Court 3806' decided on 03.08.1997, by holding that many useful informations and concealed materials may be elicited from a suspect in custody, than a suspect who is well-protected by an order of anticipatory bail, in which case, interrogation may be reduced to a mere ritual. 9.

In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners and the present petition stands dismissed. 10.

Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be an expression of opinion by this Court on the merits of the case. 11.

A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. ( SUBHAS MEHLA ) 09.03.2026 JUDGE Geeta Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No