Sarwan Kumar vs State Of Punjab
2026 Latest Caselaw 4005 P&H

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--

integrity of this order/judgment.

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

integrity of this order/judgment.

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
integrity of this order/judgment.