Raj Kumar v. State Of Punjab And Another

CRM-M-29222-2025 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.29222 of 2025 Date of decision : 31.07.2025 Raj Kumar .... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and Another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. S. GREWAL Present:- Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

*** H.S. Grewal, J. (Oral) 1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 483(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 in FIR No.15 dated 21.02.2025 under Sections 109, 115(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station Division No.1, Jalandhar.



he Sessions Court vide its order dated 03.03.2025, had directed respondent No.2 to join investigation and further directed that in the event of his joining, the Investigating Officer shall release him on interim bail on furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of Arresting officer. Further, vide order dated 18.03.2025, the interim bail so granted to respondent No.2 was made absolute. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.2 was present at the spot raising lalkaras and also participated in the occurrence while inflicting injuries on the person of his son namely Namit and the petitioner. He further submits that true facts were not brought to the knowledge of the Court below at the time of grant of bail and as such, the bail granted by the Court below is liable to be set aside.

Sonia Puri 2025.08.04 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-29222-2025 -24.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Gautam Thapar, Sr. DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

6.

Learned counsel for the State submits that no complaint with regard to non-cooperation during investigation on the part of respondent No.2 or any violation of conditions of the bail, has been received. 7.

In view of the submissions made on behalf of learned counsel for the State and the fact that the there is no material before this Court to believe that the private respondent has not cooperated in the investigation or has violated any condition of bail, no ground exists to cancel the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition stands dismissed.

(H.S. GREWAL) JUDGE July 31, 2025 Sonia Puri Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No Sonia Puri 2025.08.04 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document