Akash Mattu vs State Of Punjab

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

The present petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.128 dated 12.07.2026, registered at Police Station PAU, Ludhiana, under Sections 333, 115(2), 118(1), 191(3), 190, 324(4), 61(2) of the BNS, 2023, Sections 452, 323, 324, 148, 149, 427 and 120-B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, subsequently Sections 117(2) and 118(2) BNS/Sections 325 and 326 IPC added later on.

The FIR has been registered on the statement of Rahul, who alleged that on 09.07.2026, at about 6:45 p.m., the petitioner along with co-accused namely Yograj Sidhu, Tanish Lalla, Nitish Gupta, Bedi and one unknown person, armed with deadly weapons, forcibly entered his house. It is alleged that the accused persons assaulted the complainant as well as his family members. A specific role has been attributed to the present petitioner Akash Mattu, who allegedly inflicted blows with an iron dah on both arms of the complainant. It is further alleged that the accused persons damaged articles lying in the house and, thereafter, fled from the spot while extending threats. The prosecution case further reflects that the occurrence was committed by several persons acting together and armed with weapons. The medical record shows grievous injuries on the head and other vital parts of the complainant, pursuant to which the aggravated penal provisions were also added during investigation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to previous enmity and that no such occurrence took place in the manner alleged. It is contended that there was a delay of three days in registration of the FIR, which has not been satisfactorily explained. Learned counsel further submits that initially the injuries were simple in nature and that the grievous injury subsequently relied upon for addition of the aggravated offences is not attributable to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner is ready to join and cooperate with the investigation and that no recovery is required from him. The petitioner is stated to have no other criminal involvement and is not a proclaimed offender.

Notice of motion.

Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State.

Learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and specific. The petitioner is specifically named as one of the assailants and is attributed a role in causing injuries to the complainant with an iron dah. He placed on record medical record which shows that the complainant suffered grievous injuries on his head and other parts of the body.

It is submitted that the occurrence involved several accused armed with deadly weapons and resulted in grievous injuries to the complainant. Learned State counsel, therefore, submits that keeping in view the gravity and nature of the allegations, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.

I have perused the file and gone through the records carefully.

The allegations against the petitioner cannot be said to be vague or omnibus. The complainant has specifically named the petitioner and attributed to him the role of inflicting blows with an iron dah on both his arms. The allegations are that the petitioner, along with several other accused, forcibly entered the house of the complainant while armed with deadly weapons and participated in the assault.

The nature of injuries also assumes significance. As per the medical record submitted by the learned State Counsel, the complainant suffered grievous injuries on his head and other parts of the body. The fact that the petitioner may dispute his role in causing the particular grievous injury is a matter which cannot, at this stage, be conclusively determined in proceedings for grant of anticipatory bail. The contention regarding delay in registration of the FIR, the nature of the individual injury attributed to the petitioner and the defence of false implication are matters which would require appreciation of evidence and cannot, at this stage, outweigh the specific allegations contained in the FIR. The mere willingness of the petitioner to join investigation also does not, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, entitle him to the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail.

Having regard to the specific role attributed to the petitioner, the use of a deadly weapon, the manner of occurrence, the involvement of several assailants and the nature of injuries suffered by the complainant, this Court is not inclined to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.

It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the stage of trial.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL)

JUDGE 17.09.2026