HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH 2026 11376----2026 2026 v. Parveen Haryana State of Haryana

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Present: Present: Present: Mr. Mohit Advocate for the petitioner Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana. Advocate for the complainant. Mr. Suresh Nain, Advocate for the complainant. , J. (ORAL) SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL ***** ***** ***** ***** Present petition has been filed under Section of the petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking grant Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) of anticipatory anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No in case bearing FIR No.0676 dated

08.10.2025, , registered for the offences punishable under , ences punishable under Sections 115, 118(1), 190, 191(2), 351(3) of the BNS 190, 191(2), 351(3) of the BNS, 2023 , , 2023 (corresponding Sections 323, 324, 149, 147, 147, 506 of IPC) [Sections 109(1) and 118(2) of the BNS, 2023 109(1) and 118(2) of the BNS, 2023 corresponding Sections 307 and 226 of IPC added later on) (corresponding Sections , at Police 307 and 226 of IPC added later on), at Police Station HTM Hisar, District Hisar. Station HTM Hisar, District Hisar. 2026 11376----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----11376 20262026 11376 11376 2222

2. The gravamen of allegations against the petitioner is that on

06.10.2025, at around 9:30 PM, complainant (Gaurav), along with his friends Rohit and Rahul, was sitting at a tea stall in the New Vegetable Market, Hisar, near Shed No.1. At that time, 7–8 individuals arrived on motorcycles and an auto-rickshaw. Among them were Mohit, Naseeb, Rohit, Chand, Parveen (petitioner herein), Natti, Kalu, Joni, Kachu, Mohit, Sundu, Mandi, Govind, Rahul, Sachin, Baba, Tiranga, Jugan, Vijay @ Katta, Kalu, and Dhoni. All the accused were armed with deadly weapons and began assaulting them. Chand stabbed Gaurav on his left thigh with a knife. Rohit (son of Naseeb) struck him on the back with a gandasi, while Naseeb inflicted a sword blow on his back. The accused collectively attacked both Gaurav and Rohit, whereas Rahul managed to escape from the scene. They were later rescued by nearby shopkeepers.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further iterated that the occurrence in question happened on 06.10.2025, whereas, the FIR was registered on 08.10.2025, thus, there is a delay of 02 days in report the occurrence to the police. Learned counsel has argued that injured – Rohit was declared as LAMA (Left Against Medial Advice) by the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Hisar and was admitted in the private hospital, and from the said hospital, on

10.10.2025, he disclosed the name of the petitioner to be a person who 2026 11376----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----11376 20262026 11376 11376 3333 caused injury to him. Learned counsel has further argued that even the injured – Rohit has no clean antecedents and is involved in two criminal cases.

3.1. Learned counsel has asserted that the police have not conducted a fair and impartial investigation and the inquiry conducted so far is not only incomplete, but also tainted with bias. Learned counsel has further asserted that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Moreover, the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4. Learned State counsel, while raising submissions in tandem with the status report by way of an affidavit dated 11.3.2026, which is already on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. The relevant of the said reply reads as under: ““““6. SSSSpecific role of the petitioner pecific role of the petitioner: - That the petitioner Parveen has pecific role of the petitioner pecific role of the petitioner been specifically named and attributed a distinct role in the occurrence. During investigation, co-accused Sunil @ Chanda @ Sundu and Sachin, in their respective disclosure statements, categorically disclosed that the petitioner Parveen inflicted a blow with a gandasi on the head of injured Rohit during the assault. The said act is directly connected with the injuries sustained by the victim and forms an integral part of the violent attack carried out by the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention. The role of the petitioner is therefore specific and active in nature and cannot be treated as a case of mere presence at the spot. The name of the petitioner comes in the statement of injured Rohit.”””” On these submissions, dismissal of the present petition is entreated for. 2026 11376----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----11376 20262026 11376 11376 4444

4.1. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner had caused a grievous injury, with a gandasi, on the head of injured – Rohit. Learned counsel has further argued that, in case, the petitioner is granted concession of anticipatory bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice as also interfere/ intimidate the prosecution evidence/ witnesses. Thus, dismissal of the petition in hand is prayed for.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.

6. As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. As per the prosecution case and upon perusal of the status report filed by the State, it is borne out that the petitioner along with co-accused caused injuries to the complainant and his friends. The petitioner inflicted injuries with a sharp edged weapon i.e., gandasi no the forehead of Rohit, which has been declared ‘dangerous to life’.

7.1. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR.

8. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to 2026 11376----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----11376 20262026 11376 11376 5555 reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be established a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily v. Anil Sharma, (1997) cause impediment in effective investigation. In StateStateStateState v. Anil Sharma, (1997) v. Anil Sharma, (1997) v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] p. 189, para 6) ““““6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.””””

9. In view of the serious and specific allegations and the role attributed to the petitioner, this Court finds no compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the petitioner. Moreover, considering the gravity of the offence and the manner in which the petitioner along with his co-accused caused injuries to the complainant and his friends and the 2026 11376----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----11376 20262026 11376 11376 6666 petitioner having caused injury to Rohit, which has been declared as ‘dangerous to life’, there is a strong likelihood that if granted the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail, the petitioner may influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses. Granting bail, at this stage, would not only undermine the administration of justice, but may also embolden the accused and pose a threat to the safety and well-being of the victim and other witnesses. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid dismissed. of merits and is hereby dismissed dismissed dismissed

10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. SUMEET GOEL)))) ((((SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE April 01 , 2026 April 01, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 April 01 April 01 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No