Gourav Kumar vs State of Punjab

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.160 dated 13.09.2025 registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 351, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) (Section 109 of BNS added later on) at Police Station Mataur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

As per the allegations, on 07.09.2025, on the asking of accused Ankit, complainant Vikas had reached near a shrine in village Mataur, where a scuffle had taken place between accused Ankit and Ashu. Some time thereafter, the complainant came back to his house but then, accused Ankit came to his house in drunken condition and started hurling abuses to him by saying that he had got him (Ankit) beaten by Ashu by remaining present as a spectator only and extended threats to kill him. His father intervened and then he left. The complainant then received a phone call from accused Saurav, who called him out of his house and on reaching there, he found the petitioner, who is brother of accused Ankit, to be present there along with co-accused Saurav and Gajjan. They intercepted him and opened an attack upon him. The petitioner and co-accused Saurav and Gajjan caught hold of him and accused Ankit struck blows with a knife, thereby injuring his abdomen and fingers of left hand with intent to kill him. He was taken by them to Civil Hospital, Mohali and after getting him admitted there, they had fled away.

After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated and the same are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar but the same had been dismissed, vide order dated 14.10.2025. The petitioner then filed a petition bearing No.CRM-M-60974-2025 before this Court, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 31.10.2025.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition is maintainable since after dismissal of his previous petition, there is substantial change in the circumstances as the victim Vikas and his father Naresh have been examined as witnesses in the case of the co-accused and have not supported the prosecution version at all. They have not implicated the petitioner and the other accused in commission of the subject offences. The petitioner is ready to join investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. The changed circumstances have also made him entitled to seek concession of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition is maintainable and deserves to be allowed.

Notice of motion.

Learned State counsel has accepted notice of the petition and while conceding the fact that the complainant and the victim Vikas have resiled from their previous statements before the trial of the co-accused, has argued that the petition is not maintainable being a second petition and hence the same does not deserve to be allowed.

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

The previous petition as filed by the petitioner had been dismissed by this Court by observing that the petitioner along with the co-accused was an active participant in the occurrence. The petitioner has placed on record copies of sworn depositions of the injured complainant Vikas and his father Naresh Kumar as Annexure P-2. On a perusal of these sworn depositions, it is revealed that though both of them deposed that the victim Vikas had sustained stab wounds, but have stated that some unknown muffled-faced persons had attacked him and had caused injuries to him. Both of them have not identified the petitioner as one of the assailants and the victim has even categorically stated that he had not recorded any statement to the effect that the present petitioner had caught hold of him and the accused Ankit had struck blows with knife. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, which certainly amount to material change in the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly. the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be extended benefit of anticipatory bail, subject to his joining investigation and surrendering within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and upon doing so, he shall be released on bail by the Investigating Officer on furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to his satisfaction.

It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner.

Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.