'Case Of Version, Cross-Version': Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Interim Anticipatory Bail To Man Accused Of Assaulting Lawyer
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted interim anticipatory bail to the main accused Saurav @ Saurav Dhaiya booked for assaulting a lawyer, arising out of a neighbourhood dispute in Sonipat.
It was alleged that the lawyer was assaulted with an intention to kill him and his car's windshield was smashed. The District Bar Association also observed one day strike demanding strict action.
Justice Surya Partap Singh observed that the matter appeared to be a case of version and cross-version, and that the injuries suffered by the complainant were not declared grievous.
"that as per copy of medico-legal report of complainant available on record, three injuries were suffered by the complainant and none of them has been declared to be grievous in nature; that as per opinion of Medical Officer, all the abovementioned three injuries were caused by blunt weapon; that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents; that since it is a case of version and cross-version, it is not possible to ascertain at this stage which of the two parties was aggressor, and thereby responsible for the commission of offence..."
The first petition for pre-arrest bail was filed in connection with FIR registered at Police Station Civil Line Sonipat under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 115, 126, 3(5), 324(4), 351(3), with additional Sections 110, 61(2), 190, and 191(3) added subsequently.
The FIR was lodged at the instance of the complainant, Anil Kumar Antil, a lawyer by profession who alleged that on January 15, 2026, after removing a rickshaw obstructing the passage near his residence, he was later waylaid at about 4:00 PM by the accused armed with bamboo sticks. It was alleged that the assailants smashed his car's windshield and inflicted injuries, and that the petitioner had attached pointed objects to a bamboo stick and struck multiple blows on his head, causing bleeding and loss of consciousness.
Counsel for the petitioner Advocate Samay Sandhawalia contended that the case was a result of undue influence exercised by the complainant and that the actual victims were two individuals—Rita and Bishram—who allegedly suffered fractures when the complainant ran his car over their legs.
It was argued that no grievous injury was suffered by the complainant and that the incident had been distorted to portray him as the victim. The petitioner further submitted that a cross-FIR (FIR No. 12 dated 16.01.2026) had already been registered against the complainant under Sections 125(a), 281, 351(3), and 75(2) of the BNS, based on allegations that he was the aggressor.
Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court's ruling in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation to argue that the co-accused had been arrested without notice, in violation of settled principles governing arrest.
The State and the complainant opposed the plea, contending that the attack was pre-planned and motivated by anger over the morning incident involving the removal of the cycle cart. It was argued that the petitioner led the assault and that custodial interrogation was necessary for recovery of the weapon of offence.
The State further submitted that the petitioner was absconding and that the gravity of the allegations disentitled him from pre-arrest bail.
During hearing, the petitioner's counsel Samay Sandhawalia contended that instant case is not an ordinary case, wherein the ordinary practice of first approaching the Court of Sessions and then High Court, can be adopted.
In this regard, he submitted that being Advocate by profession, the complainant is misusing his position, and that in the wake of above mentioned incident, the Bar at Sonipat is on strike, and therefore, the petitioner is unable to approach the District Courts Sonipat for filing of application for anticipatory bail.
The Court noted that Supreme Court in Mohammad Rasal C.'s case makes it abundantly clear that in extraordinary cases, for the reasons to be recorded, an application for pre- arrest bail can directly be entertained by the High Court.
The Court noted that the complainant is a Lawyer and due to his involvement, the Bar is stated to be on strike, naturally the situation is that the petitioner is not in a position to approach the Court of Sessions and exercise his statutory right to apply for anticipatory bail. Thus, it is hereby held that the requisite extraordinary situation exists in the present case, which makes the petitioner eligible to directly approach this Court for anticipatory bail.
After perusing the record and viewing the video footage placed on record, the Court noted that the medico-legal report showed that the complainant suffered three injuries, none declared grievous.
The Court said that It was not possible at this stage to determine which party was the aggressor.
Recovery of the alleged weapon could be facilitated by directing the petitioner to join investigation and no material indicated that custodial interrogation would yield fruitful results, it added.
Stating that there was no material to suggest that the petitioner would tamper with evidence or evade investigation, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to interim anticipatory bail.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on April 22.
Title: Saurav @Saurav Dhaiya v. State of Haryana