High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/41233/2025disposed of

Yograj v. State Of Punjab

2025-09-10Mrs. Justice Sukhvinder Kaur5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Sr. No.102+213 Case No. : CRM-M-41233-2025(O&M) Decided On : September 10, 2025 Yograj ....

Petitioner vs.

State of Punjab ....

Respondent CORAM :

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.

* * * Present :

Mr. Munish Puri, Advocate and Mr. Harsh Thakur, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.

Mr. Navdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

* * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J.

CRM-35534-2025 :

This is application under Section 528 the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for placing on record a document as Annexure P-13.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and Annexure P-13 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.

Main Case :

Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in in GD No.23 dated 12.07.2025, under Section 118(1), 115(2), 191(3), 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (offence under Sections 117(2) and 333 BNS added later on) in FIR

No.14 dated 18.03.2025, under Sections 115(2), 333, 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Narot Jaimal Singh, District Pathankot. Brief facts of the case are that the dispute pertains to version and cross-version. To begin with, initially FIR No.14 dated 18.03.2025 was got registered by brother of the petitioner namely Shakti Raj, alleging therein that his sister Seema performed love marriage with Gulshan on 01.11.2019 and they came to know about this marriage only on 10.04.2023. However, later on, Gulshan started maltreating Seema and she came to matrimonial home. On 02.12.2024, at about 07:00 PM, Gulshan along with his parents namely Sikander Pal and Vijay Kumari, brothers Kailash Kangla and Abhilash Kumar, Pawan Kumar and Reena Devi came to their house armed with base ball, dattars etc.

They dragged out his sister Seema from her hair while raising lalkara and when complainant Shakti Raj intervened to save his sister, Abhilash Kumar gave dattar blow on right side of his head, Kailash Kangla gave dattar blow on left side of his forehead, Sikander Pal attacked with baseball hitting the complainant on his back and right shoulder. Upon raising alarm, all the assailants ran away from the spot along with their respective weapons. So, on the statement of Shakti Raj (brother of the petitioner), the FIR in question was registered after 31⁄2 months of the occurrence.

On the other hand, perusal of file speaks of statement, got recorded by aforesaid Kailash Kangla (brother of Gulshan), on the basis of which GD No.23 dated 12.07.2025 was recorded, wherein the petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail. It has been alleged in the said statement of Kailash Kangla that on 02.12.2024, when he was coming back from his work, near his house, petitioner Yograj along with his parents Jagdish Raj

and Beena Devi, brother Shakti Raj, Sahil @ Roni and Rajat Kumar stopped him forcefully and Shakti Raj attacked him with punch hitting his left eyebrow. Then his father Jagdish Raj attacked his head with tokka and petitioner hit him with baseball striking on his nose. All of them gave him legs and fist blows on his chest and stomach. He raised alarm, upon which his parents came for his help and all the aforesaid persons also attacked them causing injuries to his parents as well.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the aforesaid GD No.23 dated 12.07.2025 has been got recorded by the complainant party after 07 months and 10 days from the date of incident, thereby concocting a false story. In fact, the petitioner was not even present at his house at the time of occurrence and as such, he did not receive any injury.

Per Contra, learned State counsel opposed the present bail petition and has contended that there is direct allegation levelled against the petitioner that he hit Kailash Kangla with a baseball bat on his nose, with clear intention to kill him and the said injury has been declared to be grievous in nature, which falls under Section 117(2) of BNS. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for fair and proper investigation and he does not deserve concession of anticipatory bail. However, he fairly conceded that the petitioner has not been found to be involved in any other FIR case.

Heard.

The petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the crosscase that has been registered on the basis of complaint made by Kailash Kangla. This cross-version was registered nearly 71⁄2 months after the

incident in question took place. As per the allegations, the petitioner had inflicted three injuries on the person of Kailash Kangla. Injuries no.1 and 2 were declared to be simple in nature while injury no.3, that had been caused on nose with base ball bat, had been declared grievous in nature. As per the Status Report, submitted by learned State counsel, the said grievous injury falls within the ambit of Section 117(2) BNS, which is a bailable offence. The petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents and no other criminal case has been registered against him. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for any purpose and no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars.

Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. In the event of arrest, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on furnishing bail/surety bonds, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer, subject to the conditions, as provided under Section 482(2) of BNSS. It will be open for the Investigating Officer to call the petitioner to join investigation, if so required, by issuing a written notice in this regard. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions mentioned in Section 482(2) of the BNSS. However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of along with the present petition.

September 10, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No.