Ritwik Sharma And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another

CRM CRM-M-59613 CRM CRM 59613 59613-2026 59613 2026 2026 2026
1


109 109 109 109
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH

CRM CRM-M-59613 CRM CRM 59613 59613-2026 59613 2026 2026 2026

Ritwik Sharma and another
....Petitioners
versus

State of Haryana and another
....Respondents
Date of Decision: Date of Decision: October 30 Date of Decision: Date of Decision: October 30 October 30, 2026 October 30 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026
Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: October 30 Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: October 30 October 30, 2026 October 30 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present Present: Present Present Mr. Akash Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana.

Mr. Prince Pal, Advocate for respondent No.2 – complainant.



SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral)

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for
grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioners, in case bearing FIR
No.315 dated 28.09.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections
115, 190, 191(3), 333, 351(3) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Sector 13/17
Panipat, District Panipat.
2. For the sake of ease, relevant factual milieu is drawn from the
order dated 08.10.2026 passed by the concerned learned Sessions Court
(whereby anticipatory bail plea of the petitioners was rejected), reads thus:
“ 3. These are the facts of the case that on 27.9.2026 a complaint was
made to the police by victim Smt. Shivani Bansal wife of Sidhrath Bansal
resident of House no.16E TDI City Panipat informing that her mother in
law/victim Ekta Bansal had in the year 2025 contested elections for the
post of President of Resident Welfare Association TDI City Panipat. On
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.10.30 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-59613 CRM CRM 59613 59613-2026 59613 2026 2026 2026
2

22.09.2026 during the hearing of a case against RWA by the mode of
video conferencing, petitioner/accused Purshotam Vats uttered words
targeting character of victim Ekta Bansal.
4. Victim Ekta Bansal on 27.9.2026 at about 9.30 AM in the morning
had gone to the house of petitioner Purshotam Vats to raise her protest
against conduct of the petitioner in uttering bad words about the victim.
When victim Ekta Bansal was talking with petitioner Purshotam Vats, his
wife / accused Reena arrived. Both Purshotam and Reena had beaten
victim Ekta and abused her. Husband of victim Ekta arrived and rescued
his wife from the clutches of accused, who threatened the victim by saying
that petitioner Purshotam Vats was employed in Delhi Police and on
finding an opportunity victim and her family would be killed or implicated
in some false case.
5. Thereafter on 27.9.2026 at about 10.30 AM, accused Purshotam
Vats, Reena Vats, Krish Vats, Ritwik Sharma, Deepanshu Gahlyan,
Deepanshu Kundu and 2-3 unknown accused armed with wooden sticks,
iron rods came at the house of the victims. Accused ringed the doorbell of
the house of the victims who opened the door. Accused made forcible
trespass. At that time victim Shivani Bansal, Ekta Bansal, Rakesh Bansal,
Sidhrath Bansal, Manan Bansal, Smt., Sargam Bansal, a two year old child
Kanvi Bansal were present at home Accused assaulted victims.
6. Petitioner/accused Purshotam Vats had given an iron rod blow on
the left shoulder of victim Ekta Bansal and had also pushed her head into a
wall.
7. Co-accused Depanshu Kundu had assaulted victim Manan with
wooden danda. Co-accused Reena Vats, Ritwik and Deepanshu Gehlyan
assaulted victim Shivani Bansal with dandas, kicks and fists. Co-accused
Krish Vats caught hold victim Shivani Bansal from her hairs and molested
her. Co-accused Reena slapped small child of the victim. Co-accused
Ritwik Sharma and Deepanshu Gahlyan had beaten victim Shivani Bansal
with fists and kicks and they had also caught sister in law of the victim
from her hairs and pushed her head towards the wall. Co-accused
Deepanshu Kundu had smashed glasses of the doors and windows of the
victim. Co-accused Krish Vats had even assaulted victim Manan with a
broken glass causing injuries to both the eyes of victim Manan. Victim
Sidhrath Bansal managed to make a video of the incident. Co-accused
no.4 Ritwik Sharma was heard giving threats to the victims to kill them in
future. Victim Sidhrath Bansal dialled Police Helpline 112. Police arrived
at the spot.
8. Victims Ekta Bansal and Manan were brought in an ambulance to
Civil Hospital Panipat but since it was Sunday and doctors were not
available so victim Ekta Bansal was admitted in Sumit Hospital Panipat
and victim Manan was admitted in City Hospital Panipat. Other victims
had taken medicine. On these allegations a prayer was made to the police
to take action against accused.
9. On the basis of above complaint and MLRs of victims Ekta Bansal
and Manan present FIR was registered. ”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has iterated that a bare perusal
of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioners are
concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further
iterated that the petitioners have been falsely implicated into the FIR in
question. It has been argued that the dispute primarily relates to Residents
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.10.30 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-59613 CRM CRM 59613 59613-2026 59613 2026 2026 2026
3

Welfare Association’s election between two families living in the same
locality. It has been further iterated that the petitioners-side had also made a
complaint to the police, but till date no action has been taken on the same.
Learned counsel has urged that the victim had firstly approached the house of
the petitioners and started abusing and passed character remarks qua petitioner
No.2’s daughter. Thereafter, family of the petitioners went to the house of the
complainant to ask the victim as to why she passed such character remarks.
Learned counsel has submitted that still the complainant and her family
members did not stop but again started using filthy comments qua petitioner’s
family, which ultimately resulted into grave instigation and provocation. It has
been further iterated that the injury allegedly sustained by the victim at the
hands of petitioner No.2 has been stated to be simple in nature, and petitioner
No.1 has been attributed the role of giving fist and kick blows to the family
members of the complainant.
3.1. Learned counsel has iterated that co-accused of the petitioners,
namely, Krish and Deepanshu have been accorded the concession of regular
bail by the concerned Court below.
3.2. Learned counsel has iterated that custodial interrogation should
not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely
necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Learned counsel has argued
that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners. Furthermore, the petitioners
are ready to join the investigation and, hence, no useful purpose would be
served by sending the petitioners behind the bars. On the aforesaid
submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.10.30 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-59613 CRM CRM 59613 59613-2026 59613 2026 2026 2026
4

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed status report by
way of an affidavit dated 23.10.2026, which is already on record. Role of the
petitioners as mentioned in the said short reply, reads thus:
“ 3. Role of Petitioner No. 1 Ritwik Sharma Role of Petitioner No. 1 Ritwik Sharma:- Ritwik Sharma is Role of Petitioner No. 1 Ritwik Sharma Role of Petitioner No. 1 Ritwik Sharma
specifically named in the complaint as accused No.4, who came to
the house of the complainant along with the other co-accused,
forcibly entered the house, and gave kick and fist blows to the
complainant, her husband and her father-in-law. He is clearly seen
in the video recording inside the house of the complainant,
threatening to kill the complainant and her family members, which
corroborates the allegation in the complaint that accused No. 4 can
be heard openly threatening to finish the entire family. He is also
involved in another criminal case under the Arms Act.
4. Role of Petitioner No. 2/ Purshotam Vats Role of Petitioner No. 2/ Purshotam Vats:- Purshotam Vats is the Role of Petitioner No. 2/ Purshotam Vats Role of Petitioner No. 2/ Purshotam Vats
main accused and the occurrence arose out of his own rivalry with
Ekta Bansal over the RWA elections. He is specifically named in
the complaint as the person who, after the first incident at about
9:30 AM, came to the house of the complainant at about 10:30 AM
along with the other co-accused, armed with an iron rod, forcibly
entered the house, struck Ekta Bansal on her left shoulder with the
iron rod, pulled her hair and banged her head against the wall, and
also pulled the hair of the complainant's sister-in-law and banged
her head against the wall. The MLR of Ekta Bansal records
complaint of pain in the left shoulder. He is seen in the video
recording assaulting the family members of the complainant,
however, the alleged iron rod is not visible in the video. He had
earlier threatened the complainant's family by invoking his position
in Delhi Police. The iron rod allegedly used by him is to be
verified and is yet to be recovered.
5. That the plea of the petitioners that nothing is to be recovered from
them is incorrect. The danda recovered so far is the one used by
co-accused Deepanshu Kundu, with which he broke the glass of
the house. The iron rod allegedly used by petitioner Purshotam
Vats is yet to be recovered, and the other weapons carried by the
accused persons have also not been recovered.
6. That the petitioners cannot claim parity with co-accused Krish
Vats and Deepanshu Kundu. The said co-accused were arrested,
interrogated, their disclosure statements were recorded and
recovery was effected, and only thereafter were they granted
regular bail. The petitioners, on the other hand, have evaded the
investigation and have not joined it till date. The grant of
anticipatory bail to co-accused Reena Vats is also of no help to the
petitioners, as the same was granted on the ground that no weapon
was attributed to her, whereas petitioner Purshotam Vats is
attributed the use of an iron rod and petitioner Ritwik Sharma is
seen in the video extending threats to kill. ”

Raising submissions in tandem with the said short reply, learned
State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners by
arguing that serious allegations have been leveled against the petitioners. It has
been argued that considering the seriousness of the allegations, custodial
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.10.30 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-59613 CRM CRM 59613 59613-2026 59613 2026 2026 2026
5

interrogation of the petitioners is necessary for fair and effective investigation.
Given the severity of the offence, there exists a substantial likelihood that the
petitioners may abscond or tamper with the evidence, if the petitioners are
enlarged on bail. Thus, dismissal of the petition in hand is prayed for.
4.1. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant has vehemently
opposed the grant of petition in hand by arguing that there are direct/ serious
allegations against the petitioner. It has been argued that the petitioners, along
with their co-accused, trespassed the house of the complainant, and assaulted
the members of the family, which include a woman and a small child. It has
been, thus, argued that the petitioners do not deserve the concession of
anticipatory bail. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition
in hand is entreated for.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have
gone through the available record of the case.
6. As per the prosecution case, the allegations against the petitioners
are serious in nature. A perusal of the prosecution case, the material available
on record, the status report filed by the State, as well as the order passed by the
learned Sessions Court dismissing the petitioners’ application for anticipatory
bail, prima facie indicates that the petitioners, along with the co-accused,
allegedly armed with dandas , iron rods etc., trespassed into the complainant’s
house and assaulted the members of the victim’s family, including a woman
and a small child, purportedly in furtherance of their common object. Keeping
in the view factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the nature of
allegations and role attributed to the petitioners; this Court is, prima facie , of
the opinion that the petitioners do not deserve the concession of extraordinary
relief of anticipatory bail.
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.10.30 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-59613 CRM CRM 59613 59613-2026 59613 2026 2026 2026
6

6.1. The co-accused of the petitioners have been stated to be granted
the concession of regular bail by the concerned Court below; however, the
petitioners ( herein ) seek the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. The
considerations and parameters governing grant of regular bail are distinct from
those applicable to the grant of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petitioners
cannot claim parity with their co-accused merely on the ground that the co-
accused have been granted regular bail.
6.2. Perusal of the petition in hand shows that petitioner No.1 has
himself admitted therein that he is involved in 01 more FIR(s). The aforesaid
criminal antecedent(s) reveal that petitioner No.1 is a habitual offender with a
tendency to indulge in criminal activities. Such antecedent(s) cannot be brushed
aside as a mere coincidence and are a relevant consideration while adjudicating
the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. The criminal antecedent(s) of petitioner
No.1 also raise a reasonable apprehension that, if enlarged on bail, he may
indulge in similar criminal activities, misuse the concession of bail, or interfere
with the fair course of justice. The possibility of his absconding or influencing
prosecution witnesses also cannot be ruled out.
6.3. The other pleas raised by the petitioners, including those of false
implication etc., are matters to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence during
the course of trial. Such disputed questions of fact(s) cannot be conclusively
determined at the stage of consideration of the petitioners’ prayer for
anticipatory bail.
6.4. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from
which it can be deciphered that the petitioners have been falsely implicated into
the present FIR.
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.10.30 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-59613 CRM CRM 59613 59613-2026 59613 2026 2026 2026
7

7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for
grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding
individual rights and protecting societal interests. The Court ought to reckon
with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused;
the need for free and fair investigation as also the deeper and wider impact of
such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the
Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any
transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima
facie case is not made out against the petitioners. The material which has come
on record and preliminary investigation appear to establish a reasonable basis
for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the
petitioners, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation.
In State State State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 :1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 :1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 :1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 :1997 SCC (Cri) 1039]
Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6)
“ 6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is
qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-
ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case
like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous
advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which
would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the
suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest
bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such
a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial
interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-
degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be
advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that
responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner
and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not
conduct themselves as offenders. ”

8. In view of the nature and seriousness of the allegations, this Court
finds no compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the
petitioners. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary for
an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of
merits and is hereby dismissed dismissed dismissed. dismissed
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.10.30 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-59613 CRM CRM 59613 59613-2026 59613 2026 2026 2026
8

9. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of
opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.








(SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE
October 30 October 30, 2026 October 30 October 30 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026
mahavir

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.10.30 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment