Ajay v. State Of Haryana
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 22.06.2026 Ajay .........Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present:
Mr. Siddarth, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ram Karan Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
Ms. Jasneet Mehra, Advocate, for the complainant. VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (Oral).
Prayer in the present petition, preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short `the BNSS'), is for the grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 67 dated 24.04.2026 under Sections 109, 115(2), 190, 191(3), 118(1), 333, 324(6), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short `the BNS'), registered at Police Station Bahu Akbarpur, District Rohtak. 2.
On a complaint submitted by one Maninderjeet Singh, the FIR in question was registered. It was alleged by the complainant as under:- "They are three brothers. They have taken a combine Bharat 737 on which they do the work of harvesting crops in different States. Along with him, his friends Fauji son of
(2) Sadhu, resident of Village Rai Majra, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, Punjab and Happy also drive on combine and have been harvesting wheat crops in Village Mokhra, District Rohtak for about 3 years. They came to Haryana and stay in the house of Phool Singh son of Suraj Bhan, resident of Mokhra Khedi, District Rohtak, Haryana in Mokhra village. Like every year, in the month of April 2026, all three persons had come to Mokhra with a combine and were harvesting the crop. On 22.04.2026, all three of them were harvesting one acre of crop on Basana Road in the field of Phool Singh with a combine, when 1012 boys from the village came with axes, sickles and iron rods in their hands, stopped the tractor in front of the combine and they started beating Ajay son of Phool and Rimpy daughter of Phool Singh. Rimpy called the 112 vehicle.
When the 112 vehicle arrived, the crop was being harvested. Injured Ajay and Rimpi were shifted to the hospital for treatment. They returned home. After reaching home they came to know the name of attackers as Jaibir son of Kashmir, Akash son of Pramjeet, Sonu son of Ombir, Ajay son of Ombir, Golu son of Mukesh, Shubham son of Ramesh, Vedpal son of Bittu, Ravinder son of Vedpal, Naveen son of Ashok, Arjun son of Ramesh, Bholu son of Ramesh, all residents of village Mokhra. Then they slept in the room upstairs of Phool Singh's house and on 23.04.2026 at around 2.00 A.M. in the night time, all the above named accused persons entered in the house of Phool Singh after consulting with each other with axes, sickles, iron rods, swords and wooden sticks.
(3) started inflicting injuries upon them with axes and sickles. At that time, they inflicted injuries on his mouth, head and arms with axes and farsa; they also inflicted injuries on the head and legs of Happy with farse and iron rods and they also inflicted injuries upon his friend Fauji with iron axes and rods and due to this both arms of his friend Happy broken. At that time Bimlesh wife of Phool Singh was present in the house and these persons are those persons who attacked upon them in the fields. They also damaged his Motor-cycle and scooty of articles/things lying in the house and they also took away Rs. 2,00,000/- in the bag. Then they called at number 112. The official of 112 and Ambulance shifted them to PGIMS Rohtak. They inflicted injuries upon them to attempt the murder as there was a land dispute between Phool Singh and accused persons, who attacked upon them and prayed that legal action be taken against those persons. On the basis of these allegations, the complainant sought legal action against the accused person. On the basis of statement FIR registered."
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is argued that it is a case of version and cross version and a cross FIR has been registered by the brother of the petitioner and as a counter blast, the present FIR was registered against the petitioner. It is further submitted that no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has clear antecedents and is willing to join investigation and abide by any condition imposed by the Court.
(4) 4.
Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant, have caused appearance and have opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail. It is submitted that the complainant side was grievously injured. Certain photographs have been produced for the perusal of the Court, during the course of arguments.
5.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and find no ground to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6.
The allegations are extremely serious.
The photographs produced during the course of arguments show extremely serious and brutal injuries having been inflicted upon the complainant side by the petitioner and co-accused. They are fortunate to have survived the brutal and murderous attack. 7.
In the considered opinion of this Court, custodial interrogation would be imperative to elicit the truth and to recover the weapon(s) of offence.
8.
Keeping in view the aforementioned facts and the gravity of allegations levelled, there is no ground to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 9.
Accordingly, the petition is found to be devoid of merit and is dismissed.
(Vikram Aggarwal) Judge 22.06.2026 ds Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No