[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev @ Bhanja And Another vs State Of Haryana on 18 April, 2026
CRM-M-20886-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
104
CRM-M-20886-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 18.04.2026
Sukhdev @ Bhanja and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Ram Kumar, Advocate
for the complainant.
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
1. Through the instant petition, filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners seek grant of anticipatory bail
in case arising out of FIR No. 410 dated 09.10.2021, registered under Sections
148, 149, 341 and 302 of IPC (Section 120-B of IPC added later on) at Police
Station Sadar Kanina, District Mahendergarh.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the
this petition are the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the
statement recorded by complainant Devender alleging that on 09.10.2021, his
son Gaurav was returning from Mahendergarh and while on the way and near
the canal of village Malra, he was intercepted by accused Ravi, Mohan, Ajay,
Pritam, Fukra and petitioner No. 1, who were accompanied by some more
persons. His son made a call to his wife intimatilng that he was assaulted by
CRM-M-20886-2026 (O&M) -2-
the abovenamed persons by taking him into a hotel. On hearing so, the
complainant along with his father Krishna reached at the spot and saw that the
assailant while causing injuries to his son. He was rescued by them but was
found to have sustained several injuries on his person. He was taken to
hospital but died on the way.
3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were
initiated. During investigation, accused Vicky @ Fukra, Ravi @ Langda,
Harsh and other accused were arrested. Accused Harsh got recovered mobile
phone in which he had prepared a video of the incident. The same was taken
into custody by the police. Subsequently, accused Yogesh @ Mohan was also
arrested. Petitioner No.1 and one Pritam, who were named in the FIR, were
found to be innocent and had not been arrested and challaned. Petitioner No. 2
was subsequently nominated as accused but he too was found to be innocent
and was not arrested. After completion of investigation qua remaining
accused, challan was presented before the learned trial Court and they are
facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences.
4. As revealed from the record, during trial, an application under
Section 319 of Cr.P.C. (which is pari materia with Section 358 of BNSS) was
moved by the prosecution for summoning the present petitioners as additional
accused. The said application had been dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to
file afresh at appropriate stage. Subsequently, after recording statements of
some material witnesses, another application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.
was filed by the complainant and was forwarded by the State through Public
Prosecutor for summoning the petitioners and Pritam as additional accused.
CRM-M-20886-2026 (O&M) -3-
Vide order dated 12.01.2026, the said application has been allowed and the
petitioners and co-accused Pritam have been summoned to face trial as
additional accused in the present case. Apprehending their arrest, the
petitioners moved a joint application for grant of anticipatory bail before the
Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa but the same had been
dismissed, vide order dated 01.08.2025.
5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have
been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner No. 2 was not even named in
the FIR. After conducting thorough investigation in the matter, the petitioners
were found to be innocent and had not been arrested and challaned. They have
been wrongly summoned as additional accused by the learned trial Court. In
the CCTV footage of the incident, petitioner No. 2 was seen snatching danda
from co-accused Captain so as to save the deceased and while not causing any
injury to the deceased. No specific injury has been attributed to him. Even no
specific injury or overt act has been attributed to petitioner No.1. They are
ready to join the proceedings before the learned trial Court. Since they have
been summoned as additional accused, their custodial interrogation is not
required at all. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.
6. Learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the
complainant, has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioners by
submitting that there are serious allegations against them. Their presence at
the scene of occurrence stood established from the CCTV footage. They were
seen causing injuries to the deceased victim. Keeping in view the gravity of
the allegations levelled against the petitioners, they do not deserve to be
CRM-M-20886-2026 (O&M) -4-
granted concession of pre-arrest bail. Hence, it is urged that the petition is
liable to be dismissed.
7. This Court has heard the rival submissions.
8. The petitioners, by membership of an unlawful assembly with the
co-accused, are alleged to have assaulted victim Gaurav, which resulted into
his death. The petitioners were found to be innocent during investigation.
They have been summoned as additional accused by the learned trial Court on
allowing an application filed under Section 358 of BNSS. Their custodial
interrogation is not required as the investigation is already over. They are
ready to join the proceedings before the learned trial Court and to abide by the
terms and conditions to be imposed upon them. Keeping in view the
abovementioned facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that pre-trial
incarceration of the petitioners is not required and they have made out a case
for grant of anticipatory bail to them. Accordingly, the present petition is
allowed. The petitioners are directed to surrender before the learned trial
Court within a period of ten days from today and on doing so, they shall be
released on bail, subject to their furnishing personal/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
18.04.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
