Ankush Kumar v. State Of Punjab

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 24.03.2026 Ankush Kumar . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Shayon Sen, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1.

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:- Name & age of Petitioner (s) FIR No.

Date Section(s) Police Station District Ankush Kumar, aged about 25 years 09.10.2025 118(2), 115(2) and 351(3) of Division No.2 Pathankot BNS, 2023 2.

In the present case, on 12.11.2025, following order was passed by this Court:- "2.

As per the facts mentioned in the FIR, petitioner Ankush and the injured Puneet are cousin brothers. Alleged incident took place at around 11:30 a.m. on 16.03.2025, whereas FIR was registered much later, on 09.10.2025, i.e., after a delay of nearly six months and twenty-four days.

As per the allegations, petitioner is stated to have caused two injuries to the injured Puneet, details of which are mentioned here under:- Sr. No.

Injures Marked Number 1.

Predrapped incised looking wound two in number over left side of arm with fresh bleeding involving only superficial layers of skin.

No

- 2 - 2.

Bruises multiple in number with imprinted abrasion's over back longitudinal in size and length over the back.

No Injury No.1 was advised for X-ray examination, whereas Injury No.2 was declared simple in nature.

Reliance has been placed by the prosecution upon the medical opinion, as per which Injury No.1, sustained by Puneet, on his left arm, has been declared as grievous. However, photocopy of the document issued by the Board of Doctors does not bear any date; therefore, this Court is unable to ascertain whether this medical opinion was rendered immediately after the incident, or at the time of registration of the case, i.e., on 09.10.2025. Furthermore, the alleged grievous injury pertains to a non-vital part of the body, i.e. on the left arm.

Apart from this, learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the MLR dated 16.03.2025 pertaining to Raj Kumar, who is father of the petitioner and 'taya' (paternal uncle) of the complainant, Puneet. As per the said MLR, father of the petitioner has also suffered the following two injuries:- Sr.

No.

Injuries Marked Injury Number 1.

LACERATED WOUND OF 1.5 CM X 0.5 CM ABOVE LEFT EYEBROW. NO ASSOCIATED SWELLING, NO PARIETAL SWELLING, BLEEDING PRESENT No 2.

SWELLING OF THENAR REGION OF LEFT HAND, NO VISIBLE SWELLING, NO RESTRICTION IN MOVEMENT No 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that complainant has failed to disclose the injuries sustained by petitioner's father, thereby concealing the true genesis of the incident, which can only be determined by the Court after complete evidence is brought on record. It is further argued that there is an inordinate delay in the registration of the FIR, which casts doubt on the veracity of the allegations.

Counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and undertake to fully cooperate with the investigating agency, provided he is granted protection from arrest. Thus, it is prayed that concession of anticipatory bail be extended to the petitioner in the present case.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

On advance notice, Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab, puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent - State, and Mr. Damanjeet Singh Batalvi, Advocate, puts an appearance on behalf of the complainant. 6.

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioner has inflicted a grievous injury upon the complainant using a sharp-edged weapon, and therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.

7.

Taking into consideration the overall circumstances and arguments advanced by learned counsel for both parties, this Court is of the view that it would not be appropriate to subject the petitioner to custodial interrogation at this stage, particularly in respect of an incident that occurred in March 2025, whereas complainant's version was introduced much later, in October 2025.

8.

List again on 29.01.2026.

9.

Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating Agency.

- 3 - In the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on ad-interim bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.). 10.

Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over his passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport.

It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of the Court." 3.

Continuing his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in compliance of the order dated 12.11.2025, passed by this Court, petitioner has joined the investigation, and has fully co-operated. Therefore, he prays for confirmation of the said interim anticipatory bail order.

4.

Learned State counsel on instructions, confirms the said averment made by counsel for the petitioner of joining the investigation on 22.01.2026 by the petitioner, and submits that as of now, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation.

5.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6.

Since, petitioner has already joined the investigation and custodial interrogation is no more required; ad-interim bail order dated 12.11.2025, passed by this Court is hereby made absolute. However, petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the terms and conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.

7.

Accordingly, petition stands disposed of, accordingly. 8.

However, present order would be subject to the submission of passport of the petitioner to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned,

- 4 - if he possesses, within a period of one week from today. Otherwise, he would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport.

It is clarified that in case, aforesaid condition is not complied with, this order would be considered as non est automatically. Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE March 24, 2026 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No