Navdeep @ Fauji vs State Of Haryana

RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI, J. (Oral)

Prosecution alleges that on 14.07.2026, the petitioner and others, in the area of Police Station Sadar Jhajjar, formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons; that in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly, they abducted the complainant Pramod and his friend Vinay @ Bantu and caused injuries to them in the process of such abduction and consequent thereto which resulted in three grievous injuries on different parts of body of the complainant Pramod and one grievous injury on the body of the injured Vijay @ Bantu; that in the process of commission of the crimes in question, one of the accused prepared video of the said assault etc.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, contended that the petitioner has no previous criminal history; that the complainant himself has a criminal track record; that if the petitioner would have caused any injury to the complainant Pramod, the complainant would have specifically described the same in the FIR; that however, such is not the version contained in the FIR; that the petitioner admittedly took the complainant Pramod and his friend Vinay @ Bantu to hospital; and that the petitioner is ready to join investigation as well as to cooperate with the investigating agency on all material counts.

On the other hand, learned State counsel, on advance notice, has contended that contents of the FIR in question make out a prima facie case under Section 140(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘BNS 2023’) against the petitioner and his co-accused; that if contents of the FIR are perused in between lines, same make out the offences which have been described in the FIR and consequent investigation against every member of the unlawful assembly; that vehicle as well as weapons used in the commission of offences in question have yet to be recovered from the petitioner and his co-accused; that these days, a new trend of assaulting and taking video while assaulting has started so that such video can be used to terrorize the general public.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel on the petition in question, I am of the considered opinion that considering the arguments raised by the learned State counsel and totality of the facts/circumstances of the matter in question, a prima facie case under Section 140(4) of BNS 2023 is made out against the petitioner and his co-accused from contents of the FIR in question and therefore, the petitioner does not deserve concession of anticipatory bail.

Petition is accordingly dismissed. Anything mentioned in the present order shall not affect final decision of the trial in question.

Interim application/s, if any, also stand/s disposed off.