Rohit Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Others

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 208-2 Decided on : 22.04.2026 Rohit Kumar . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana and others . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Shahin Hussan, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. P.K. Jhanda, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Taleem Khan, Advocate for respondent No.2.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1.

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:- Name of Petitioner (s) FIR No.

Date Section(s) Police Station District Rohit Kumar, aged 30 years 260 04.09.2025 140(1), 3(5), 304 of BNS, (corresponding Sections 364, 34 of IPC) Baldev Nagar Ambala 2.

In the present case, on 11.03.2026, following order was passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court:- "

Petitioner, an accused in case FIR No.260 dated 04.09.2025, registered against him, for commission of offence punishable under Sections 140(1), 3(5), 304 BNS, at Police Station Babain District Kurukshetra, has prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case by complainant on account of some misunderstanding arising from business transaction. Further, the

- 2 - falsity of the case set up by the complainant is apparent from the fact that though the alleged incident occurred on 15.07.2025, but for reasons best known, the FIR was lodged only on 04.09.2025. This intervening period was misused by the complainant to concoct facts to suit his own convenience and thus a coloured version has been portrayed. Continuing further, learned counsel contends that even if the allegations as levelled in the complaint are presumed to be true (though not admitted), the only role attributed to petitioner is that he along with other accused had made complainant forcibly sit in their car. No injury has however been attributed to petitioner.

It is further the submission of learned counsel that co-accused Ranbir Singh, who had allegedly assaulted one of the friends of complainant has since been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.02.2026 (Annexure P-5). Prayer has been made to take a lenient view in favour of the petitioner, moreso when the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and based on the compromise a petition for quashing the FIR is soon to be filed. Heard. Documents on record perused.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Sunny Namdev, AAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf ofrespondent-State and prays for time to file status report in the matter.

Adjourned to 22.04.2026.

In the meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating Agency. Inthe event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on ad-interim bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall also be abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.). To be tagged along with CRM-M-7491-2026."

3.

Continuing his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in compliance of the order dated 11.03.2026, passed by this Court, petitioner has joined the investigation, and has fully co-operated. Therefore, he prays for confirmation of the said interim anticipatory bail order.

4.

Learned State counsel on instructions, confirms the said averment made by counsel for the petitioner of joining the investigation by the petitioners, and submits that as of now, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. 5.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6.

Since, petitioner has already joined the investigation and

- 3 - custodial interrogation is no more required; ad-interim bail order dated 11.03.2026, passed by this Court is hereby made absolute. However, petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the terms and conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.

7.

Accordingly, petition stands disposed of, accordingly. 8.

However, present order would be subject to the submission of passport of the petitioner to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses, within a period of one week from today. Otherwise, he would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport.

It is clarified that in case, aforesaid condition is not complied with, this order would be considered as non est automatically. Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE April 22, 2026 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No