Sahil Sharma v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.68800 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.02.2026 Sahil Sharma .....Petitioner.

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH ***** Present:- Mr. Harlove Singh Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vinay Malhotra, 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 of Petitioner (s) FIR No.

Date Section(s) Police Station District Sahil Sharma 264 24.10.2025 118(1), 351(2) & 351(3) of BNS, 2023 City Gurdaspur Gurdaspur 2.

On 05.12.2025, following order was passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court:- "1. Prayer in this petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.264, dated 24.10.2025, under Sections 118(1), 351(2), 351(3) of BNS, registered at Police Station City Gurdaspur.

2.

Notice of motion.

3.

Mr. Jatinder Pal Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. The parties have been heard and material on file has been perused.

4.

The present case was registered on the basis of statement given to the police by Anoop Bajala with the allegations that she was married

CRM-M No.68800 of 2025 -2with Sahil Sharma (petitioner) in the year 2009. However, they got divorced on 04.03.2014 but one son was born on 25.12.2014. Later on, her husband apologised and pleaded for forgiving him as he could not live without his child. In the year 2019, she started residing at Talwara, Hoshiarpur, where Sahil Sharma (petitioner) started coming and meeting the child and later on, started living with her. In October 2020, she constructed a house but Sahil Sharma started coming to the house on the pretext of meeting the child and started harassing and abusing her. On 14.07.2025, he had beaten her and later on, apologised through an affidavit. On 23.10.2025, she was parking her vehicle outside the gym near Jahaz Chowk at about 4:30 pm, when Sahil Sharma came there in a car and started beating her. He attacked her with a knife in her abdomen and right wrist and people rescued her and she sought action against him.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner has been falsely implicated. Victim has suffered only superficial injuries. Learned counsel further contended that petitioner is ready to join the investigation and to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the Court and benefit of anticipatory bail be extended in favour of the petitioner.

6.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the bail and argued that petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail in view of the gravity of the offence.

7.

Adjourned to 04.02.2026 for filing status report. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in the event of his arrest, he shall be admitted to ad-interim bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS [erstwhile Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.]:- i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court;

iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of Section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section." 3.

Continuing his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in compliance of the order dated 05.12.2025, passed by the Coordinate Bench of 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 learned counsel for the petitioner of joining the investigation on 22.12.2025, by the petitioner, and submits that as of now,

CRM-M No.68800 of 2025 -3custodial 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 05.12.2025, passed by this Court is hereby made absolute. Accordingly, present petition is allowed.

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.

Misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) February 04, 2026 JUDGE Yag Dutt Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No