Rajveer Kaur v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Date of Decision: 09.04.2026 Rajveer Kaur ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh.

Present:

Mr. S.S.Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent.

Surya Partap Singh, J.

1.

This petition for anticipatory bail, is the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of 'the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023'. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 11 dated 06.01.2026, for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 316(2), 318(4), 3(5) and 61(2) of 'the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023' Police Station City Fatehabad, District Fatehabad, Haryana. 2.

Vide order dated 19.03.2026, the petitioner was admitted to interim anticipatory bail, subject to the condition of furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of arresting officer. It was also directed that the petitioner shall join the investigation.

3.

Heard.

4.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

in compliance with order dated 19.03.2026, the petitioner has already joined the investigation, and that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner. In view of above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has requested that the order dated 19.03.2026 be made absolute. 5.

The learned State counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to the learned State counsel, although the petitioner has joined the investigation, but she did not cooperate, and failed to facilitate the recovery of money. As per learned State counsel, in view of above custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. 6.

The record has been perused carefully.

7.

With regard to fact-situation of this case and the abovementioned arguments, following are the relevant factors which are supposed to be taken into consideration:- i) that the petitioner has already joined the investigation; ii) that the petitioner cannot be forced to assist the prosecuting agency, for the recovery of incriminating material which may harm her interests/right of defence; and iii) that nothing significant has to be recovered in this case with the assistance of petitioner, as the recovery of money cannot be treated to be a piece of evidence, to connect the petitioner with crime.

8.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions and the fact that the petitioner has already joined the investigation, the order dated 19.03.2026, whereby the petitioner was accorded the benefit of interim anticipatory bail,

is hereby made absolute. The present petition stands allowed, accordingly. (Surya Partap Singh) Judge April 09, 2026 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No