1. Application (IA NO. 297836 of 2025) for impleadment is allowed and the impleaded party is added as second respondent.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal challenges the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M-35167 of 2025.

4. Apprehending arrest in connection with FIR No. 51/2025 registered at Police Station- Haibowal, District - Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 190, 191(3), 333 and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the appellant preferred an application before the High Court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("BNSS" for short).

5. Said application for anticipatory bail has been rejected by the High Court vide the impugned order dated 23.07.2025. Hence, the instant appeal has been preferred.

6. By order dated 09.10.2025, the following order was passed by this Court:

                   "Issue notice to the respondent, returnable on 21.11.2025.

                   Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to serve the standing counsel for the respondent/State.

                   Till the next date of hearing, no coercive steps shall be taken as against the petitioner in relation to FIR No. 51/2025 dated 08.04.2025 registered at Police Station -Haibowal, District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana provided the petitioner co-operates in the investigation."

7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant; learned counsel for the first respondent-State and learned counsel for the second respondent-complainant and perused the material on record.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has been singled out by the High Court by declining to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to him whereas seven co-accused have received the said relief. He submitted that there is a contradiction between the medical report and the FIR. However, on the principle of parity, the appellant is also entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. Hence, the impugned order may be set aside and this appeal may be allowed.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent-State as well as learned counsel for the second respondent-complainant with reference to the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent-State contended that there is no merit in this appeal; that the role attributed to the appellant herein is serious; that he has caused a grievous hurt inasmuch as by using a rod the little finger of the hand of the victim has been amputated partly. Therefore, this is a grievous hurt and hence, no indulgence may be shown to the appellant herein.

10. Considering the circumstances on record, in our view, the appellant is entitled to the relief claimed under Section 482 BNSS.

11. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set-aside the order passed by the High Court.

12. We direct that in the event of arrest of the appellant, the Arresting Officer shall release the appellant on bail, subject to furnishing cash security of the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) with two like sureties.

13. It is directed that the appellant shall extend complete cooperation in the ensuing investigation. The appellant shall not misuse his liberty and shall not in any way influence the witnesses or tamper with the material on record.

14. Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the appellant.

15. With the aforesaid directions, the criminal appeal is allowed.