Harmohan Kumar Alias Harmohan Gir vs State Of Punjab

CRM-M-57453 & 57461 of 2026 (O&M) -1-



IN THE HIGH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

224 (1)
CRM-M-57453-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 30.10.2026

Harmohan Kumar @ Harmohan Gir
...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab
...Respondent

2. CRM-M-57461 of 2026 (O&M)

Harjesh Kumar @ Harjesh Gir

…Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
…Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON

Present:- Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner (s) (in both petitions).

Mr. Gorav Kathuria, DAG., Punjab.

Mr. Faryad S. Virk, Advocate
for the complainant.
*

NEERJA K. KALSON, J. (Oral)

1. Since both the petitions arise out of the same FIR and involve
common questions of fact and law, they are being taken up together and
disposed of by this common order.
2. Through the present petitions, the petitioners seek the
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.02 15:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-57453 & 57461 of 2026 (O&M) -2-
concession of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in case FIR No. 282 dated 14.09.2026 (Annexure P-
1), registered under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109, 351, 191(3) and 190 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 323, 341, 307,
506, 148 and 149 IPC), at Police Station Sohana, District SAS Nagar
(Mohali).
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
contend that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case
on account of a longstanding civil dispute between the parties concerning
landed property situated in Village Shiampur. It is submitted that the parties
have been embroiled in previous litigation and the present FIR is a
counterblast to the said dispute. It is further contended that the injuries
specifically attributed to the petitioners have been declared simple in nature
and, therefore, the ingredients of Section 109 BNS are not attracted. Learned
counsel further submit that the petitioners have clean antecedents and are
ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the
investigating agency. On these premises, prayer has been made for grant of
anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra , learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel
for the complainant, vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. It
is submitted that both the petitioners have been specifically named in the
FIR and distinct roles have been attributed to them. Petitioner Harmohan
Kumar alias Harmohan Gir is attributed an iron-rod blow on the head of
complainant Daljit Puri, which struck the left side of his head, resulting in an
injury for which he is stated to have received eight stitches. Petitioner
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.02 15:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-57453 & 57461 of 2026 (O&M) -3-
Harjesh Kumar alias Harjesh Gir is attributed a lalkara, followed by an iron-
rod blow directed towards the head of complainant Daljit Puri, which struck
his left hand when he attempted to ward off the assault. The latter petitioner
is further attributed a separate iron-rod blow on the head of injured Gagan
Puri, near his left eye. It is submitted that complainant Daljit Puri sustained
five injuries, one of which has been declared grievous in nature and the rest
being simple, whereas injured Gagan Puri sustained one injury, which has
been declared simple. Learned State counsel further submits that the
weapons of offence are yet to be recovered and custodial interrogation of the
petitioners is necessary for effecting recovery and conducting an effective
investigation.
5. Pursuant to the order dated 06.10.2026, learned State counsel
has filed a status report by way of affidavit of Harsimran Singh Bal, PPS,
Deputy Superintendent of Police, City-2, SAS Nagar (Mohali), in CRM-M-
57453-2026, which is taken on record. The said report, arising out of the
common FIR, also places on record the medico-legal reports of both injured
persons along with the subsequent medical opinions, which have been
perused by this Court.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the material available on record.
7. A plain reading of Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023, which corresponds to Section 307 IPC, reveals that the
gravamen of the offence lies in the intention or knowledge accompanying
the act and the circumstances in which it is committed. Significantly, the
expression “if hurt is caused to any person by such act” occurs in the latter
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.02 15:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-57453 & 57461 of 2026 (O&M) -4-
part of the provision, which contemplates an enhanced punishment where
hurt actually results. The legislature has thus drawn a distinction between the
commission of an act accompanied by the requisite intention or knowledge
and the actual infliction of hurt. It follows that causing hurt is not an
indispensable ingredient of the offence in its basic form, nor is it necessary
that the injury, if caused, must invariably be grievous or life-threatening.
What assumes significance is whether the act was committed with such
intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances, that had death
ensued, the offender would have been guilty of murder. Consequently, the
mere classification of an injury as simple cannot, by itself, be regarded as
conclusive of the applicability of Section 109 BNS. The aforesaid
interpretation finds support from the recent judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2026
INSC 1006 , wherein it has been reiterated that Section 307 IPC
contemplates two limbs concerning punishment but only one concerning
culpability, which rests upon the requisite intention or knowledge
accompanying the act. It has further been held that the infliction of hurt,
whether simple or grievous, is not a prerequisite for attracting the said
provision.
8. Adverting to the medical evidence placed on record, the
medico-legal report of complainant Daljit Puri reveals that he sustained five
injuries caused by a blunt weapon. As per the subsequent medical opinion,
injury No. 3, situated at the base of his left thumb, has been declared
grievous in nature, whereas the remaining four injuries, including injury No.
1, comprising a lacerated wound measuring 2.5 × 0.5 cm over the left
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.02 15:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-57453 & 57461 of 2026 (O&M) -5-
parietotemporal region of the head, have been declared simple. The medico-
legal report of injured Gagan Puri records a lacerated wound measuring 2.5
× 0.5 cm near his left eyebrow, which has also been declared simple in
nature. Thus, the contention that all the injuries sustained during the
occurrence were simple in nature does not find support from the medical
material placed on record.
9. Examined in the aforesaid statutory backdrop, the allegations
against the respective petitioners disclose specific and distinguishable acts.
While petitioner Harmohan Kumar is attributed an iron-rod blow on the head
of complainant Daljit Puri, petitioner Harjesh Kumar is attributed an iron-
rod blow directed towards the complainant's head, which struck his left hand
when he attempted to protect himself, besides a separate blow near the left
eye of injured Gagan Puri. The grievous injury recorded at the base of Daljit
Puri's left thumb assumes relevance in the context of the allegation
concerning the blow sustained while warding off the assault, although its
attribution to a particular accused would remain subject to proof. The nature
of the weapons allegedly used, the parts of the body targeted and the manner
in which the assault is stated to have been carried out are circumstances
which cannot be disregarded merely because the injuries on the heads of
both injured persons have been medically classified as simple. During the
course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has also shown
photographs depicting the injury sustained by complainant Daljit Puri on his
forehead, for which he is stated to have undergone eight stitches. The said
injury is specifically attributed to petitioner Harmohan Kumar and cannot be
attributed to petitioner Harjesh Kumar, whose role has been separately
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.02 15:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-57453 & 57461 of 2026 (O&M) -6-
noticed hereinabove. Whether the requisite intention or knowledge
contemplated under Section 109 BNS is ultimately established would,
however, remain a matter for determination on the basis of evidence.
10. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners regarding
previous civil litigation and enmity between the parties has also been
considered. However, the mere existence of a civil dispute or previous
hostility cannot, at this stage, be treated as sufficient to conclude that the
criminal allegations are false, particularly when the occurrence is stated to
be supported by medical evidence. The plea of false implication on account
of previous enmity would necessarily require examination in the light of the
material collected during investigation and cannot, by itself, furnish a
ground for extending the discretionary concession of anticipatory bail.
11. Coming to the requirements of investigation, it is the stand of
the State that the weapons of offence are yet to be recovered and custodial
interrogation is necessary for effecting recovery and carrying the
investigation to its logical conclusion. The necessity of custodial
interrogation cannot be considered in isolation from the nature of the
accusation and the specific acts attributed to the accused. In the present case,
both petitioners are attributed the use of iron rods during the same
occurrence, with distinct blows directed towards vital parts of the bodies of
the injured persons. The recovery of the weapons allegedly used assumes
relevance in the context of the investigation, and the requirement asserted by
the investigating agency cannot be brushed aside merely on the petitioners'
willingness to join the investigation. Having regard to the individual roles
attributed to the petitioners, the medical evidence and the stage of
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.02 15:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-57453 & 57461 of 2026 (O&M) -7-
investigation, this Court is not persuaded that the circumstances warrant
extending the discretionary protection of anticipatory bail.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, and upon considering the
individual roles attributed to the respective petitioners, this Court does not
find any ground to extend the discretionary concession of anticipatory bail to
either of them at this stage. Consequently, both the petitions stand dismissed.
13. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are
confined solely to the adjudication of the present petitions seeking
anticipatory bail and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on
the merits of the case. The trial Court shall proceed independently,
uninfluenced by any observation made in this order.
14. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected
case mentioned above.
Pending application(s), if any stand(s) disposed of
accordingly.

30.10.2026 (NEERJA K. KALSON)
s.khan
JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.02 15:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document