← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/5214/2025allowed

Binder Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2025-07-17Mrs. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-5214-2025 Date of decision: July 17th, 2025 Binder Kumar .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. S.K. Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajat Gautam, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.320 dated 04.08.2023 under Sections 328, 304, 149 of the IPC registered at Police Station Dabwali Sadar, District Sirsa. 2.

While issuing notice of motion on 29.01.2025, following submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner were recorded:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the FIR in question was registered way back on 04.08.2023, challan was presented against the coaccused; no challan was presented against the petitioner as he had evidently been falsely implicated in the present case. However, while the trial was underway qua the co-accused and most of the prosecution witnesses had been declared hostile, the petitioner was being hounded by the Police."

3.

Thereafter, vide order dated 18.03.2025, the petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation. The relevant part of the said order reads as under: PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.07.17 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-5214-2025 -2- "In compliance of order dated 29.01.2025, status report by way of an affidavit dated 17.03.2025 of Kapil Ahlawat, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police (HQ), Dabwali, District Sirsa, on behalf of respondent-State, has been filed in Court today, which is taken on record. Learned State counsel, on instructions, has not disputed that neither had the petitioner been declared a proclaimed offender nor any proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. were ever initiated against him." 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 18.03.2025, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. 5.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, does not dispute the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. He, on further instructions, submits that the petitioner is not required for further investigation much less for his custodial interrogation.

6.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 18.03.2025 is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) BNSS.

July 17th, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.07.17 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh