[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Monu And Another vs State Of Punjab on 20 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
106
CRM-M-64581-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 20.03.2026
Monu and Another
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG Punjab
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 BNSS for
grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No. 173 dated 08.10.2025
under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 351(3), 191(3) and 190 of the BNS,
registered at Police Station Jalandhar Cantt., District Police Commissionerate
Jalandhar.
2. On 09.03.2026, this Court had passed the following order:-
"This is first petition under Section 482 BNSS for
grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case bearing
FIR No. 173 dated 08.10.2025 under Sections 115(2), 118(1),
126(2), 351(3), 191(3) and 190 of the BNS, registered at
Police Station Jalandhar Cantt., District Police
Commissionerate Jalandhar.
As per the allegations in the FIR, on 04.10.2025 at
about 09:20 PM, the complainant Rajesh Kumar Arora along
with his wife Reeta Arora was returning home after closing
their shop when three persons came on a motorcycle bearing
No. PB-35-AJ-3649 and started quarrelling with them. One of
the assailants allegedly gave a dattar blow on the fingers of
the complainant's right hand, another blow on his right
shoulder and a third blow on his knee. The assailants
allegedly threatened the complainant to withdraw the case
pending against Pooja. The complainant was thereafter taken
to Johal Hospital, Jalandhar for treatment. During
investigation, the said motorcycle was traced and CCTV
footage was collected. The owner of the motorcycle, Parladh
1 of 3
CRM-M-64581-2025 (O&M) -2-
Bhatti of Pathankot, stated that he had given the motorcycle
to his friend Mohit Atri, who in turn disclosed that the
motorcycle had been taken by Monu and Gourav Kumar
(present petitioners) on the relevant day. On this basis, the
petitioners were nominated as accused in the present case. As
per the MLR, the complainant suffered injuries on his right
knee, right hand fingers and right elbow joint.
It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that
the petitioners have not been named in the FIR and the same
has been registered after four days of the alleged occurrence
against unknown persons. It is further submitted that the
petitioners have been nominated during investigation on the
basis of the statement of Prahlad Bhatti, the owner of the
motorcycle allegedly used in the occurrence, who stated that
he had given the said motorcycle to his friend Mohit Atri.
The said Mohit Atri, when joined in the investigation, made a
disclosure statement to the effect that on the date of
occurrence, the said motorcycle had been taken from him by
the present petitioners. On the basis of the said disclosure
statement, the petitioners have been nominated in the present
case. Learned counsel further submits that as per the MLR,
three injuries have been found on the person of the
complainant, i.e. on the right knee, fingers and elbow, which
are non-vital parts of the body and all the injuries have been
declared to be simple in nature. It is contended that the only
non-bailable offence attracted in the present case is under
Section 118(1) of the BNS, 2023 and, therefore, the
petitioners deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.
Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant
of anticipatory bail on the ground that serious allegations of
causing injuries to the complainant have been levelled against
the petitioners and they are the principal perpetrators who had
assaulted the complainant. Although, they were not named in
the FIR, their names have surfaced during investigation on
the basis of the disclosure statement made by Mohit Atri and,
therefore, they are not entitled to the concession of
anticipatory bail.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
gone through the record of the case. The petitioners were not
named in the FIR, which was lodged after a delay of four
days and initially registered against unknown persons. Their
names have surfaced during investigation on the basis of the
disclosure statement of a coaccused. As per the MLR, the
injuries attributed to the petitioners are on the right knee,
fingers and elbow of the complainant, which are non-vital
parts of the body and all the injuries have been declared to be
simple in nature. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this
Court deems it appropriate to grant interim anticipatory bail
to the petitioners. Accordingly, in the event of their arrest,
the petitioners shall be released on interim anticipatory bail
2 of 3
CRM-M-64581-2025 (O&M) -3-
subject to their joining the investigation as and when called
by the Investigating Officer and subject to the conditions as
envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.
List on 20.03.2026. "
3. Learned counsel submits that in pursuance of the afore-mentioned
order, the petitioners have not only joined investigation but also fully cooperated
with the investigating agency. He further submits that in case the investigating
agency requires the petitioners to appear, they shall make themselves available
without demur.
4. Learned State counsel on instructions affirms the factum of joining
the investigation by the petitioners and cooperating with the investigating
agency. He also submits that at this stage, the petitioners are not required for
further custodial interrogation.
5. In view of the above and without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioners is allowed
and the order dated 09.03.2026 granting interim bail to them, is hereby made
absolute, subject to compliance of conditions as specified under Section 482(2)
BNSS.
6. However, it is made clear that if the petitioners fail to join and
cooperate with the investigating agency as and when required, the State would
be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of the present anticipatory
bail granted to them.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
20.03.2026
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
3 of 3
