Mukul @ Arman v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 17.03.2026 Mukul @ Arman ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present :

Mr. Rajat Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
 


     ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1.

     !"# $   FIR No.408 dated 19.06.2025 registered under Sections 110, 115, 126, 190, 191(3) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') at Police Station Gurgaon Sadar, District Gurugram " %"&'("'"&   ) 

 

*$+, -CRM-39149-2025 Allowed as prayed for.

MAIN CASE Through the instant petition, the petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.408 dated 19.06.2025 registered under Sections 110, 115, 126, 190, 191(3) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') at Police Station Gurgaon Sadar, District Gurugram.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no offence under Section 110 of BNS (erstwhile Section 308 of IPC) is made out in the present case. Even, no injury has been attributed to the petitioner nor his name is figured in the FIR; the petitioner was nominated only on the basis of disclosure statement, which is inadmissible in evidence. As per the complainant version, the petitioner was seen in CCTV footage near the spot of occurrence, however, the petitioner

-2has his shop nearby and use that way regularly to go to his shop. Learned counsel submitted that co-accused, namely, Ashu Saini has been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 04.09.2025 passed in CRM-M No.49393 of 2025 (Annexure P-4) and requested for relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Upon advance notice, learned State counsel appears on behalf of respondent-State and submits that the petitioner was armed with danda and caused injuries to the complainant, who later on, also identified the petitioner. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Didar Singh, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and filed his power of attorney. The same is taken on record.

Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submitted that the complainant received serious injuries as he was beaten up by the petitioner along with other accused with an iron rod and danda, and received 16 stitches on his head. Further, the petitioner was seen in CCTV footage also and prayed for dismissal of the instant petition.

Heard.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the main injury is attributed to the co-accused, who has already been released on regular bail by the trial Court; another co-accused, namely, Ashu Saini has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 04.09.2025; and the main injury under Section 110 of BNS is not attributed to the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when required by Investigating Officer. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of investigating/arresting officer subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.), till the next date of hearing. To be heard along with CRM-M No.49393 of 2025 i.e. on 18.11.2025..

/ 0      ,      1 $



 *   $$$       $$ $2     

3     *    0              4     1$  $ $ *   $$$

     $  

-3- 2   $ & 4* * 5

$          

*  "&'("'"&$$       

1    !"6"7# 8 *     

1 *   $$$ * 2  *    

    $  (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 17.03.2026 M.Kamra Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No