[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rohit Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 6 April, 2026

                               CRM-M-62592-2025            1

                           103
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                                                  CRM-M-62592-2025
                                                                  DECIDED ON: 06.04.2026


                           ROHIT KUMAR                                       .....PETITIONER

                                                           VERSUS

                           STATE OF PUNJAB                                   .....RESPONDENT

                           CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.

                           Present:    Mr. Prince Sharma, Advocate,
                                       for the petitioner.

                                       Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

                           SANJAY VASHISTH, J (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking

grant of anticipatory bail, in case, FIR No.194, dated 24.08.2025, under

Sections 126(2)/115(2)/118(1)/351(1)/351(3)/191(3)/190 of BNS

(Sections 341/323/324/503/506/148/149 of IPC), registered at Police

Station City Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran.

2. It is noticed that present petition, i.e., CRM-M-62592-2025,

was ordered to be listed for hearing along with the connected petitions,

i.e. CRM-M-62638-2025, CRM-M-62681-2025, CRM-M-60257-2025,

and CRM-M-61927-2025, on 23.03.2026.

Meanwhile, application, i.e. CRM-8189-2026 in CRM-M-

62592-2025, was listed on 10.03.2026, seeking advancement of the date

of hearing in the main petition, and the said application was taken up for

hearing and was ordered to be dismissed by this Court, on the same date.

However, file of the present petition was subsequently intermingled and

misplaced, and could not be traced out.

3. Thereafter, on 23.03.2026, although all these five petitions

were scheduled to be heard together, but hearing in the present petition

could not take place as the case file was misplaced. However, other

remaining four petitions were ordered to be disposed of, after considering

the facts and circumstances therein.

4. As the original file of the present petition was

lost/misplaced, a request was made to the Registry to make the necessary

arrangements for procuring a digital copy of the present petition from the

DMS server. After completion of the requisite steps, present petition is

now listed for its hearing.

5. After hearing the submissions addressed by counsel for the

petitioner, on 10.11.2025, following order was passed:-

"2. Complainant, Anita, lodged an FIR stating that while she was returning home along with her husband, Mukander Singh, on a motorcycle at about 9:00 a.m., they were intercepted by a group of accused persons, who were identified as:- (1) Rohit, armed with a daatar/sickle; (2) Bobby, armed with a daatar/sickle; (3) Ajay, armed with a sword; (4) Rinka, armed with a daatar/sickle; (5) Harpreet Singh @ Happy, armed with a daatar/sickle; (6) Sunny, armed with a daatar/sickle; (7) Bobby, son of Dhira, armed with a baseball bat; (8) Neelam, empty-handed; (9) Parveen, empty-handed; (10) Guri, armed with a bat; (11) Kali, armed with a sword; and (12) Kiran, empty-

handed.

It is alleged that accused Neelam, Parveen, and Kiran raised a lalkara exhorting the others by saying, "Catch them and do not allow them to go today." Acting upon this, accused persons began assaulting Mukander Singh, husband of the complainant, with their respective weapons. The specific details of the injuries and the assault are as follows:-

1. Rohit son of Tony Direct blow of sickle on the head.

2. Bobby son of Tony Direct blow of sickle on the head.

3. Ajay Sword blow on nose.

4. Rinku Sickle blow on right arm.

5. Harpreet Singh @ Happy Sickle blow on left arm.

6. Bobby son of Dhira Hit on the waist, four times, with Baseball Bat

7. Guri Hit on head, 2/3 times, with Bat

8. Kali Two Sword blows, on the face

Upon assault, Mukander Singh fell to the ground, became unconscious, and started bleeding profusely. On learning about the incident, Jinder Kaur (sister-in-law of complainant Anita) and Gurmeet Kaur reached the spot and attempted to rescue him. At that moment, another co-accused, Vishal, struck Gurmeet Kaur on her head with an iron rod, causing her serious injury. Seeing people gathering at the scene, all the accused fled from the spot along with their respective weapons, while issuing threats to kill the complainant and injured persons. Thereafter, complainant Anita, along with her sister-in-law Jinder Kaur, placed the injured Mukander Singh and Gurmeet Kaur in a car and took them to the Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran, where they were admitted in injured condition. Owing to the severity of their injuries, the attending doctor referred both the injured persons to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar, for further treatment.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, as per the allegations, petitioner Rohit Kumar (in CRM-M-62592-2025) is accused of having inflicted a direct blow with a sickle on the head of the victim. Petitioner Kiran Kaur @ Kiran (in CRM-M-

62681-2025) is alleged to have raised a lalkara by exhorting others to "catch and do not allow them to go today." Petitioner Vishal (in CRM-M-62638-2025) is alleged to have inflicted a rod blow on the head of Gurmeet Kaur.

Learned counsel further submits that, in connection with the same incident, a cross-case has also been registered against the complainant party, vide GD No.30 dated 26.08.2025, under Sections 333/115(2)/324(4)(5)/191(3)/190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station City, Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran (Annexure P-3). Therefore, it remains to be determined by the trial Court as to which party was the aggressor in the occurrence. Lastly, it is submitted that one of the co-accused

Praveen @ Parveen, who was empty handed and allegedly gave Lalkara, has already been granted the concession of interim-anticipatory bail, vide order dated 30.10.2025, passed in CRM-M-60257-2025 (Annexure P-5), and said petition is listed for its hearing for 20.01.2026. Thus, prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in the present cases.

4. Notice of motion.

5. On advance notice, Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab, puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent - State, and seeks some time to file status report in the matter.

6. Since, neither learned counsel for the petitioners nor learned State counsel is presently acquainted with the nature of injuries sustained in the incident, list these cases again on 02.12.2025, for further consideration.

7. Learned State counsel is hereby directed to file a detailed status report in the matter, after verifying the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners today before this Court. The report shall also include particulars regarding the nature of injuries suffered by the victims in both the main case and the cross-version case.

8. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases."

6. On being asked by the Court, learned State counsel, on

instructions from ASI Gurmeet Singh, submits that the injury allegedly

caused by the petitioner has been classified as simple in nature.

7. This Court has heard the submissions addressed by counsel

for the parties and has also gone through the record available before it,

and finds it appropriate to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the

petitioner in the present case.

8. Accordingly, present petition stands disposed of, with a

direction to the petitioner to join the investigation within two weeks from

today or as and when called by the investigating officer, and in the

eventuality of the arrest, petitioner would be released on anticipatory bail,