Ankit Kumar vs State Of Haryana
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M-64419-2026 (O&M) &
CRM-M-64474-2026 (O&M)
1 -
-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
132
Date of decision: 11.11.2026
1. CRM-M-64419-2026
ANKIT KUMAR ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent
2. CRM-M-64474-2026
AMIT KUMAR ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present : Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Nikhil Vashisht, Advocate with
Ms. Vanshika Darria, Advocate for the complainant.
Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Addl. A.G. Haryana
assisted by ASI Tejbir Singh.
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)
1. This order shall dispose of above noted two petitions, as the same
have emanated out of the same occurrence.
2. Prayer in these petitions under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is for
grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.189, dated 03.10.2026, under Sections
190, 191(3), 115, 351(3), 333 BNS (erstwhile Sections 149, 148, 323, 506, 452 of
IPC) (offence under Section 117(2) BNS) (erstwhile Section 325 IPC added later
on) registered at Police Station Sadhaura, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.11.11 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
CRM-M-64419-2026 (O&M) &
CRM-M-64474-2026 (O&M)
2 -
-
3. The present case was registered on the basis of statement given to the
police by Mamta Devi with the allegations that on 02.10.2026 her son Abhishek
and husband returned to their home from duty and his son Abhishek went out to
bring younger son Ankush. When he went a little ahead of their house, he saw few
boys taking intoxicants who manhandled Abhishek. However, Abhishek
alongwith Ankush returned to their house and thereafter Deepak, Harsh, Amit,
Ankit, Saurabh and about 14-15 boys attacked them at their house armed with
deadly weapons like lathis, gandasis, swords etc. and caused injuries to them as
well as her brother-in-law and she sought action against them. During
investigation, the victims were got medico legally examined and two injured
namely Ankush and Abhishek were found to have suffered grievous injuries.
Initially, the FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 190, 191(3), 115,
351(3) and 333 BNS (erstwhile Sections 149, 148, 323, 506 and 452 IPC), and
subsequently, Section 117(2) BNS (erstwhile Section 325 IPC) was added.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that they have been
falsely implicated. All the offences are bailable except the offence under Section
452 IPC, which is not made out from the allegations levelled in the FIR, as there is
no allegation that petitioners had committed trespass in the house of the victim.
Learned counsel next contended that petitioners are ready to join the investigation
and to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the Court and benefit of
anticipatory bail be extended in favour of the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel assisted by counsel for the
complainant had opposed the bail and argued that petitioners have committed a
heinous offence. The weapons of offence are yet to be recovered for which their
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.11.11 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
CRM-M-64419-2026 (O&M) &
CRM-M-64474-2026 (O&M)
3 -
-
custodial interrogation is essential and in case they are released on anticipatory
bail, it will hamper the investigation.
6. It is well settled that the power to grant anticipatory bail is of extra-
ordinary nature and is to be sparingly used with circumspection as held in 2022 (4)
RCR (Criminal) 968 titled as "Sachin @ Sachin Ahuja Vs. State of Punjab". In
SLP (Crl.) 7940 2023 titled as "Shri Kant Upadhay Vs. State of Bihar", Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that grant of interim protection or protection from arrest to an
accused in a serious case may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper
investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or
destruction of evidence. The court is cognizant of the fact that power of
anticipatory bail is to be exercised in exceptional circumstances as it may cause
some hindrance to normal flow of investigation which would undermine the case
of the prosecution.
7. The allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature. They
alongwith 14-15 unknown persons assaulted the complainant and caused injuries
to the family members at their house. Two of the victims namely Ankush and
Abhishek have suffered grievous injuries. The weapons of offence are yet to be
recovered for which the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is essential. It is
well settled that custodial interrogation is considered “qualitatively elicitation
oriented” than questioning a suspect, who is not in custody. This means that it is
seen as a more effective tool for uncovering the full truth and obtaining vital
information, especially in serious and complex cases, where the suspects presence
and co-operation are crucial to uncover the concealed evidence. Moreover, in case
petitioners are interrogated under the protective umbrella of the order of interim
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.11.11 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
CRM-M-64419-2026 (O&M) &
CRM-M-64474-2026 (O&M)
4 -
-
bail to be passed by this Court, they are not likely to answer the question in the
right earnest. Rather grant of anticipatory bail, at this stage, will amount to
hampering the investigation.
8. Resultantly, taking into consideration the gravity of the offence the
facts noticed hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
petitioners do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, both
the petitions are dismissed.
9. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.
10. Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
11.11.2026 JUDGE
amandeep
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.11.11 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment