Mukesh Kumar Alias Mohit Alias Phula vs State Of Punjab
2026 Latest Caselaw 4001 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mukesh Kumar Alias Mohit Alias Phula vs State Of Punjab on 30 April, 2026

                      CRM-M-23811-2026                                                       -1-




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                                              AT CHANDIGARH

                      101                             CRM-M-23811-2026
                                                      Date of decision: 30th April, 2026

                      Mukesh Kumar @ Mohit @ Phula
                                                                                        ...Petitioner
                                                          Versus

                      State of Punjab
                                                                                      ...Respondent

                      CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

                      Present:     Mr. Pardeep Singh Mirpur, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                   Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

                                         ***

MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the

petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No. 19 dated

29.01.2026 registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1) and 3(5) of Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') (Section 118(2) of BNS added later on)

at Police Station Navi Baradari, District Jalandhar.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement

got recorded by the complainant Saurav @ Scooby alleging therein that he

was working as a car electrician at BMC Car Market, Jalandhar from the last

many years. Rohit @ Rocky, Mohit @ Phoola @ Mukesh Kumar i.e. present

petitioner, Utsav @ Vadda and Anmol @ Kujja also worked in the same car

market. On 24.01.2026, he along with Utsav @ Vadda was repairing a car

while being present at the shop of Sona Auto Car Accessories, when the

accused Rohit @ Rocky started teasing him without any reason. A verbal

altercation took place between them. The accused Rohit @ Rocky then called

the petitioner, who is his brother. The petitioner along with accused Anmol @

Kujja reached there on a motor bike. He was armed with iron sickle and

opened an attack upon the complainant who managed to save himself. Then,

accused Anmol @ Kujja and Rohit @ Rocky grappling with the complainant

and accused Anmol @ Kujja had caught hold of him and Mohit tried to struck

blow with an iron sickle. Utsav reached for his rescue and sustained injuries

on his head with an iron sickle. The petitioner and the co-accused thereafter

caused several injuries on the person of Utsav and then fled from the spot.

Victim Utsav was admitted to hospital for treatment.

3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been

initiated and are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an

application for grant of pre-arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Jalandhar, which was dismissed vide order dated 02.04.2026.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been

falsely implicated in this case. There is delay of 05 days in reporting the matter

to the police. A false injury has been manipulated by the complainant to

implicate the petitioner. The injuries to sustained has been opined to be simple

in nature. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. He is ready to join

the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is

to be effected from him. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be

allowed.

5. Notice of motion.

6. Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition and is

ready to argue the matter. It is submitted by her that there are specific and

serious allegations against the petitioner. The injury that has been attributed

to the petitioner is a datar blow on the head of the victim-Utsav. This injury

has been opined to be grievous in nature. For conducting thorough and proper

investigation in the matter, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must.

There is no exceptional or extra ordinary circumstance is made out. Therefore,

it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

7. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties at considerable length.

8. The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have

voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries to the victim-Utsav and

is alleged to have assaulted the complainant. For the purpose of conducting

thorough investigation in the matter, custodial interrogation of the petitioner

is must. In case his custodial interrogation is denied to the Investigating

Agency, that will leave many glaring loopholes and gaps thereby adversely

affecting the investigation. The powers of anticipatory bail are extra ordinary

and the same are to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances.

In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of

the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. To elicit

the truth, as to the manner in which the incident took place, custodial

interrogation of the petitioner is must. Even otherwise, the case is at its nascent

stage. Keeping in view the nature of the allegations as levelled against him

and the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

9. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall

not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

10. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application,

if any, is rendered infructuous.

[MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 30th April, 2026 Parveen Sharma

1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No

2. Whether reportable : Yes / No