JASHANPREET Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is the second attempt under Sec. 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the BNSS') for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.341 (wrongly mentioned as 107 in the impugned order Annexure P-7) dtd. 5/7/2025, registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 304, 324(4), 117(1) of the BNS, 2023 at Police Station City Sirsa, District Sirsa.

(2.) The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that on 3/7/2025 at about 07:25 p.m., the complainant namely Harpreet Singh son of Fauja Singh, aged 27 years, resident of village Nezadela Kalan, District Sirsa, alleged that his friend namely Naresh Kumar (electrician, resident of Nezadaela Kalan) came to his house and informed him that he had to collect Rs.70,000.00 from Jashanpreet Singh (petitioner herein), who had called him to Sirsa. On his request, the complainant accompanied him on his motorcycle. When they reached Anaj Mandi, Sirsa, the friend of the complainant namely Naresh Kumar called Jashanpreet (petitioner herein), who refused to pay and switched off his phone. Later, after repeated calls, the said Jashanpreet (petitioner herein) asked us to meet at Home Town Cafe, Sirsa. Around 09:15 PM, the said Jashanpreet (petitioner herein) asked the complainant and his friend to meet at Home Town Cafe, Sirsa. Around 09:15 PM, the said Jashanpreet arrived with unknown persons abused and assaulted them. Soon, five persons including Akash @ Anil and Ravi (sons of Bhajan Lal, residents of Chhoti Chamal), Sushil @ Sheelu (son of Mahender, resident of Nezadela Kalan) and two unknown boys armed with datars came at the scene of occurrence and attacked them. During the attack, accused Akash and Ravi hit the complainant with datar on his hands; accused Jashanpreet (petitioner herein) hit the complainant with a brick; accused Sushil hit the shoulder of the complainant with a pipe like object and another unknown accused assaulted the complainant on his back. All the accused also assaulted the friend of the complainant and damaged his motorcycle. In the ensuing scuffle, accused Jashanpreet (petitioner herein) snatched the phone of the complainant. The complainant and his friend, somehow, managed to escape whereupon the complainant called his cousin namely Chandermohan, who admitted them to Civil Hospital, Sirsa. Later on the complainant was shifted to City Health Care Hospital and subsequently to Astha Hospital, Sirsa for further treatment. On these set of allegations, the FIR in question was registered.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the impugned FIR at the instance of the complainant, who hails from the same village and harboured personal enmity against the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the complainant with a view to settling scores has orchestrated the registration of the present false case against the petitioner and other co-accused. It is further submitted that, in fact, the petitioner himself sustained multiple injuries during the alleged occurrence and was admitted to the Civil Hospital, Sirsa on 4/7/2025 where he was medico-legally examined and as many as seven injuries were found on his person. Learned counsel has further submitted that rather, the local police, acting in collusion with the complainant, have implicated the petitioner in the false case. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel that the petitioner has submitted a detailed representation dtd. 1/8/2025 before the Inspector General of Police, Hisar Range as well as the Superintendent of Police, Sirsa to conduct fair and proper investigation from an officer of the rank of IPS Officer or at least to an officer outside District Sirsa but no action has been initiated by the police official. Learned counsel has further submitted that the injury attributed to the petitioner is simple in nature. It has been further argued that there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner, as nothing incriminating remains to be recovered from him. Learned counsel asserts that the petitioner has no intention of evading the process of law and undertakes to cooperate fully with the investigation. It is next submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, the grant of the instant petition is entreated for.