Jai Parkash v. State Of Haryana

1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 03.07.2026 JAI PARKASH ...PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL

Present:

Mr. Ankush Sihag, Advocate, Mr. Naresh Soni, Advocate and Mr. Aman Redhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kshitij Bharati, AAG, Haryana.

*** SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.

1.

Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.0001 dated 01.01.2026 under Sections 110, 115, 127(2), 190, 191(2), 351(3) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Urban Estate Hisar, District Hisar. Section 109(1) BNS was added in the FIR during investigation. This is the first petition for anticipatory bail.

2.

While issuing notice of motion on 27.05.2026, following order was passed:- "Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.01 dated 01.01.2026 registered under Sections 110, 115, 127(2), 190, 191(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Section 109(1) of the BNS added later on), at Police Station Urban Estate, District Hisar. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

-2petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said incident. He argued that the alleged occurrence took place on 29.12.2025 but the FIR in question was registered on 01.01.2026 i.e. after an unexplained delay of 03 days, casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. He further argued that the injured was admitted to the hospital on 29.12.2025 and the doctor declared him fit to give his statement on 30.12.2025 but the injured refused to give his statement on 30.12.2025 and even on 31.12.2025 and the same was recorded on 01.01.2026, which again creates doubt on the veracity of the prosecution. He further argued that if the contents of the FIR are taken to be true, even then no specific injury has been attributed to the present petitioner.

He further argued the entire family of the petitioner has been roped in the FIR because of one eviction petition, which is pending adjudication. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case and no recovery is to be effected from him. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. Notice of motion.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and seeks time to file status report in the matter.

Adjourned to 03.07.2026.

In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join

-3investigation within a week from today and would appear as and when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, he shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023."

3.

Learned State counsel submits that petitioner has joined investigation and is not required for custodial interrogation. 4.

Pursuant to order of this Court dated 27.05.2026, petitioner has joined investigation. Considering all relevant facts and circumstances, but without commenting on merits of the case, the petition is allowed and order dated 27.05.2026, granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner, is made absolute, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. 5.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) 03.07.2026 JUDGE Sumit Singla Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No