CRM-M/34466/2026 of DALVIR AND ANR Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 20 July 2026

1. Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNSS”) is for the grant of pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.186, dated 07.05.2026 registered under Sections 190, 191(3), 115(2), 351(3), 117(2), 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNS”) (corresponding Sections 149, 148, 323, 506, 325, 307 IPC) at Police Station Urban Estate PS Camp, District Palwal.

2. On a complaint moved by one Jogender, the FIR in question was registered. The allegations are as under:- “In the complaint, it has been averred that on 06.05.2026 at about 8:45 p.m., a call came from mobile no. 9671292081 of his son Amit to his mobile no. 9813426521. The caller informed him that the attackers had surrounded his son Arpit and beaten him seriously, and told him to immediately reach the Government Hospital, Palwal. Thereupon, at about 9:00 p.m., he reached the Government Hospital, Palwal and met his son Arpit. He also called the police on number 112, and the police arrived there. The doctor conducted the medical examination of his son, and after seeing his serious condition, advised that he be taken to a better hospital. After this, he called for an ambulance and took his son Arpit to Artemis Hospital, Gurugram. On the way, his son Arpit told him that yesterday at about 6:00/6:30 p.m., he had gone in his black Swift car bearing registration No. HR-30AD-5633 to A.F. Gym near Agarwal Chowk, Palwal for exercise. When he came out of the gym at about 8:30 p.m, and reached near his car, at that very moment, two vehicles came and stopped there-one was a white Maruti Fronx bearing registration No. HR-30-AD- 4506 and the other was a black vehicle without a number plate. From those vehicles, accused persons came out carrying weapons like sticks, iron rods and hammer. Accused Dalbir son of Santaram shouted that 'today is the opportunity, break his arms and legs so that he is unable to earn his livelihood, or kill him'. Hearing this, Devendra son of Lakhi and Karnail alias Monu Dahiya attacked him with hammers on his both knees and below the knees, and thereafter struck him on the shoulders. When he tried to escape from the accused persons, Bobby and Jarnail attacked both his hands and shoulders with iron rods. Then Dalbir struck his hand wih a hammer, due to which he fell on the ground. At the same time. Chandarup hit him on the head with a danda, causing injury near his left temple, and Rishipal also sturck the left side of his temple with the danda. Thereafter, 2-3 other persons kicked and punched him. Accused Dalbir also snatched 18,000/- from his pocket, and Devendra forcibly took away his gold chain weighing two tolas from his neck. After that, accused Dalbir attempted to run him over with his Fronx Car with the intention to kill him. At that moment, hearing his cries for help, several boys came out from the gym. On seeing them, the attackers threatened that 'today you have survived, but next time we will kill you"; and then fled from the spot. The complainant further stated that the above accused are habitual criminals and are involved in several other criminal activities. About two years ago also, the accused persons had tried to illegally occupy their land and had come to their house abusing them, but at that time respectable people of the village had arranged a compromise. The accused persons usually keep illegal weapons like pistols, iron rods and clubs in their vehicles and are hardened criminals. At present, his son's condition is serious and he is admitted in the ICU a of Artemis Hospital, Gurugram and prayed for taking action.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated. He submits that even if the allegations are believed to be correct, the alleged injuries were on non-vital parts of the body. It has been submitted that out of a total of 7 accused, 4 were found to be not present at the spot making the version of the complainant to be unbelievable and coloured. He further submits that the antecedents of the petitioners are also largely clean apart from a couple of cases out of which, in one, a cancellation report has been filed. Learned counsel further submits that the allegation of an attempt by petitioner Dalvir to run over Arpit with his car is also baseless for, there is no corresponding injury on the person of Arpit. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are willing to join investigation and abide by any condition imposed by the Court.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned Senior Counsel representing the complainant have opposed the bail application stating that 8 injuries were suffered by Arpit, the son of the complainant, out of which, 3 were declared to be grievous. He suffered multiple fractures a result of which, he had to be operated upon and rods were inserted. It has been submitted that the antecedents of the petitioners are not clean as 4 other cases stand registered against them including one under Section 307 IPC. It has been further submitted that there is a history of previous enmity also between the two sides and that in case the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, they will try to interfere in the investigation, influence and threaten the witnesses and may also abscond.

5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

6. Concededly, an incident took place in which, one Arpit (son of the complainant) was grievously injured, having suffered multiple fractures as a result of which, he had to be operated upon. The allegation also is that Dalvir accused tried to run him over with their vehicle. Rs.18,000/- cash and one gold chain were also allegedly snatched. The argument that there are no corresponding injuries pertaining to attempt of running Arpit over is not of much relevance at this stage. The manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed would call for custodial interrogation with a view to elicit the truth. Merely because 4 persons were found to be not present at the spot would not mean that the petitioners themselves were also not involved. The antecedents of the petitioners are also not clean. As per the status report, they are involved in 4 other cases including one case under Section 307 IPC. If they are granted anticipatory bail, there is likelihood of the petitioners interfering in the investigation and also threatening and influencing the complainant.

7. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find it to be a case where the concession of anticipatory bail should be extended.

8. That being so, the petition is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

However, nothing stated herein above shall be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)

JUDGE July 20, 2026 vcgarg Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable

: Yes/No