Sonu Saini And ANR v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M No.6245 of 2026 (O & M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M No.6245 of 2026 (O & M) Date of decision : 1.4.2026 Date of uploading : 1.4.2026 Sonu Saini and another .............Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. D.S. Matya, Advocate, for the petitioners Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Senior DAG, Haryana Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1.

On 27.2.2026, the following order was passed: 'Apprehending their arrest in FIR No.27 dated 16.01.2026 registered for offences punishable under Sections 191(1), 190, 329(3), 351(2), 61 of BNS 2023 at Police Station Palam Vihar, District Gurugram; the petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail. Counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners have been falsely implicated into the FIR in question on account of an impending dispute, no effective recovery is to be made from the petitioners & the petitioners are willing to join investigation and cooperate therein. List on 01.04.2026.

The petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 07.03.2026 at 11:00 A.M. in concerned Police Station and join investigation. In the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on interim bail subject to their furnishing personal/surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. As and when

CRM-M No.6245 of 2026 (O & M) -2further called by Investigating Officer, the petitioners shall join the investigation. They shall abide by the condition(s) enumerated under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.' 2.

Learned State counsel (on instructions from ASI Hari Krishan) submits that pursuant to the order dated 27.2.2026, the petitioners have joined investigation and are no longer required for custodial interrogation. 3.

Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail of the petitioners by arguing that there are direct and serious allegations against the petitioners and in case they have extended the concession of anticipatory bail, there is all the likelihood that they may flee from the hands of justice and may influence the prosecution witnesses/evidence.

4.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, especially keeping in view the factum that the petitioners have joined investigation and their custodial interrogation is not sought by the State; this Court is inclined to confirm the order dated 27.2.2026. 5.

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The interim order dated 27.2.2026, passed by this Court is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS. 6.

This order should not be treated as "blanket" order. It will not be read granting petitioners indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence. 7.

Liberty is reserved in favour of State/complainant to move for cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioners violates any

CRM-M No.6245 of 2026 (O & M) -3condition stipulated under Section 482(2) of BNSS or upon showing any other sufficient cause.

8.

Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. 9.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

10.

The present order shall be read in respect of offence punishable under Section 111 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 as well. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 1.4.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No