Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sarwan Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 30 April, 2026
CRM-M-21315--2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(208) CRM-M-21315-2026 (O&M)
2026
Date of decision : 30.04.2026
SARWAN KUMAR
...
.. Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab
****
MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS") for grant of pre--arrest bail in case arising out of FIR No. No.175 175 dated 29.06.2025 registered under Sections 109, 331(6), 115(2), 324(4), 191(3), 190 of Bharatiya ya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNS") (Section 238 of BNS added later on) at Police Station Civil Lines, Bathinda, District Bathinda.
2. As per the allegations on 28.06.2025, the petitioner formed membership of unlawful assembly with the co co-accused and in prosecution of common object thereof, they opened an attacked upon the complainant and his family members thereby causing injuries to them after making an exhortation. The allegations against the petitioner are that he had struck blows with a brick brick--
AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-21315--2026 (O&M) 2
batt upon the head of Gaytari daughter of the complainant thereby causing her a simple injury.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The injury that has been attributed to him has been opined to be simple in nature. The ingredients for commission of offence punishable under Section 109 of BNS are not attracted against him. He is ready to join investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him.
him Co-accused accused have already been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail. It is, therefore, urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by le learned arned counsel for the parties at considerable length.
6. The petitioner by forming membership of an unlawful assembly with the coaccused is alleged to have voluntarily caused injury on the person of Gaytari, daughter of the complainant by throwing a brick brick-bat.
bat. The injury has been opined to be simple in nature. No N recovery is to be effected from him.
Given the nature of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, the role attributed to him, the nature nature of the injury sustained by the victim and the AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-21315--2026 (O&M) 3
attendant facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that pre-trial trial incarceration of the petitioner is not required. Even otherwise pre pre-trial trial incarceration should not be replica of post-conviction p conviction sentencing. Taking into consideration the above discussion, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to bail subject to the condition that the petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer within a period of 10 days from today and shall join investigation within that period and also subsequently, as and when required and subject to furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating/Arresting Officer Officer.. He will also not tamper with any evidence, will not pressurize, induce, extend threats to any witness acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, will not leave the country, during investigation and trial of the case, except after seeking permission rmission from the trial Court, shall disclose the details of his Aadhar Card No., Passport No., cellphone No., while furnishing bond to the learned trial Court and shall also abide by all the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS.
8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner.
9. Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.
(MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
30.04.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No
AMIT SHARMA
2026.04.30 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.