Court acknowledges lack of grievous injuries and absence of criminal antecedents in granting bail to accused.
In a noteworthy judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted interim anticipatory bail to Saurav @ Saurav Dhaiya, involved in a complex case with cross-versions of an alleged assault incident. The decision, delivered by Justice Surya Partap Singh on February 12, 2026, emphasized the absence of grievous injuries and the lack of criminal history of the petitioner as key considerations.
The incident, which took place in Sonipat, Haryana, on January 15, 2026, escalated over a parking dispute when the complainant, Anil Kumar Antil, allegedly received a threatening phone call after moving a rickshaw obstructing his path. The situation further intensified later that day when Antil claimed he was attacked by the accused, including Saurav Dhaiya, with bamboo sticks, resulting in injuries and damage to his vehicle. Conversely, the defense argued that the complainant was the aggressor, having run over the legs of two individuals, causing them serious injuries.
The court's analysis of the medico-legal reports revealed that the complainant's injuries were not grievous, and the weapon used was blunt. Furthermore, the court noted the existence of a cross-FIR filed by Vishram Singh Rathore against the complainant, casting doubt on the aggressor's identity. Given these factors, the court determined that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was unnecessary and that recovery of the alleged weapon could be achieved through cooperation with the investigation.
The court's decision mandates that Saurav Dhaiya must comply with investigation protocols and conditions outlined under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This judgment underscores the court's balanced approach in cases with conflicting narratives, highlighting the importance of a thorough evaluation of all evidence before making a decision.
Bottom Line:
Grant of interim anticipatory bail in a case involving cross-versions of the incident, taking into account factors such as absence of grievous injuries, no criminal antecedents, and the necessity of custodial interrogation not being established.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 115, 126, 3(5), 324(4), 351(3), 110, 61(2), 190, 191(3), Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023
Saurav @Saurav Dhaiya v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2854217
