← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/16507/2026dismissed

Yogesh v. State Of Haryana

2026-03-27Mr. Justice H.S. Grewal2 pages

 

  

       

           

 



 !

"#$%$ &  

  & '

      #( ) $ &$&$ * )$ ++++            !!!! $&$ * ), $- ).   " #   $%& Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail for the petitioner in FIR No.34 dated 26.02.2026 under Sections 351(2), 3(5), 126(2), 118(1), and 115 of the BNS, 2023 (Section 118(2) of BNS added later on) (Corresponding Sections 506, 34, 341, 324 and 321 of IPC and Section 326 of IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Baragudha, Sirsa, District Sirsa. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner alongwith his two other co-accused persons has caused injuries to the complainant.

It is alleged that accused Vikas hit the complainant with a Kara on his forehead, accused Dinesh gave kappa blow on the head of the complainant and the petitioner herein gave injuries to the complainant with a danda on his hand and back. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievous injuries are attributed to co-accused Dinesh; whereas the injuries attributed to the peteitioner are simple in nature. He further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation.

RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.03.27 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order

   

  Notice of motion.

  Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jangra, AAG, Haryana accepts notice and vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that the role attributed to the petitioner is equally grave and serious as he was present at the spot being armed with a danda and has caused various injuries to the complainant.

I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have gone through the documents and other material available on record. Although the petitioner has not been attributed any grievous injures, but at the same time it is also evident that he was present at the spot being armed with a danda and has caused injuries to the complainant alongwith his co-accused persons. His intention, prima facie, seems to be very clear to cause injuries to the complainant. The allegation levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. Hence, no ground is made out to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage. Dismissed.    -$&$ * ). 

,$       



   

            RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.03.27 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order