← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/17861/2026disposed of

Jatin Narula v. State Of Punjab

2026-05-01Ms. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal3 pages

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 01.05.2026 Jatin Narula ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL

Present:

Mr. Vansh Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Amrit Kaur Mahir, AAG, Punjab.

***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL) 1.

Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short "BNSS"), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.117 dated 15.11.2025 registered under Sections 109, 351(3), 126(2), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Section 103(1) of BNS added later on), at Police Station Dhakoli, District SAS Nagar.

2.

On 22.04.2026, following order had been passed by this Court:- "Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.117 dated 15.11.2025 registered under Sections 109, 351(3), 126(2), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Section 103(1) of BNS added later on), at Police Station Dhakoli, District SAS Nagar.

-2Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He argued that it was a case of free fight without any pre-determination. He argued that if the contents of the FIR are taken to be true, even then no specific injury has been attributed to the present petitioner and the only allegation against the petitioner is that he had pushed the complainant and engaged in a verbal altercation. He further argued that the complainant himself has categorically stated that the alleged fatal injury was caused by a big man who threw bricks on the head of the deceased, who has neither been named, nor identified in the FIR, casting serious doubt on the prosecution story.

He further argued that the petitioner was earlier granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the trial Court, vide order dated 15.01.2026 which was cancelled later when injured Raghav had died and offence under Section 103(1) of BNS has been added in the present FIR, vide DDR No.21 dated 03.02.2026. He argued that the injured-Raghav had died on 02.03.2026 i.e. after a gap of 31⁄2 months from the alleged incident due to his illness and the petitioner cannot be held liable for the same. He further submitted that adding of Section 103(1) at this stage cannot be justified in the eyes of law. No recovery is to be effected from him. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report in the matter, which is taken on record and while referring to the same, she has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature as he was specifically named in the FIR.

Adjourned to 01.05.2026.

-3In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation within a week from today and would appear as and when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, he shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023".

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order dated 22.04.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation.

4.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from the investigating officer, has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is no longer required for further investigation. 5.

In view of the statement made by learned State counsel, the interim order dated 22.04.2026 is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join investigation, as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) 01.05.2026 JUDGE D.Bansal Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No