John v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 02.09.2025 John ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pawan Kumar Jhanda, Sr. DAG Haryana.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1.

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 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 hereunder:- Name of Petitioner (s) FIR No.

Date Section(s) Police Station District John 21.05.2023 506/379-B/ 353/332/186/1 48/149 IPC, Ambala City Ambala 2.

Status report by way of affidavit of Uttam, IPS, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Ambala, District Ambala on behalf of Superintendent of Police, Ambala has been filed in Court today, which is taken on record.
  

     



    3.

On 27.06.2025, following order was passed:- "Present:

Mr.Dhruv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prayer is made for

grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.313 dated 21.05.2023, under Sections 506/379- B/353/332/186/148/149 IPC, registered at Police Station Ambala City, District Ambala. As per the prosecution allegations, FIR was lodged on the complaint of security agent namely, Amarjit Singh, who was posted at Police Station Ambala City. As per allegations, on 21.05.2023, he along with Vishal son of Pradeep Sharma was present near Ram Nagar tube-well when one boy questioned him as to why he was wandering; though the complainant was performing his official duty. That boy called his companions, who came on Activa and three-wheeler and attacked the complainant with bricks and stones. One boy snatched his phone make Samsung. All the assailants took away the Activa belonging to the friend of the complainant. PCR reached at the spot and took the complainant to the hospital for treatment. As per FIR version, the complainant could identify the assailants.

During investigation, four co-accused namely, Kali Charan @ Kali, Rahul @ Nar, Sagar @ Gulati and Raju were arrested. It is contended by learned counsel that as per the statement of the complainant, four arrested co-accused were the persons, who had assaulted him. From the possession of Sagar @ Gulati, mobile phone of the complainant was recovered; whereas from the possession of Rahul @ Nar, activa belonging to the friend of the complainant was recovered. Learned counsel points out that for more than 2 years, neither petitioner was anywhere in the picture nor was sought to be arrested, but now the police is attempting to apprehend him in this case by falsely implicating him.

Notice of motion.

Ms. Dimple Jain, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. A copy of paper book be supplied to her during the course of day. It is not disputed by learned State counsel that four co-accused Kali Charan @ Kali, Rahul @ Nar, Sagar @ Gulati and Raju were arrested during investigation and

they were identified by the complainant to be assailants. It is also not disputed that no attempt was made earlier to arrest the petitioner.

Adjourned to 02.09.2025 for filing status report. In the meantime, petitioner is directed to join investigation and cooperate in the same. He will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court nor shall make any attempt to contact the complainant of the case or any witness associated with the case. In the event of the arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on interim bail on his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. He shall also abide by conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) BNSS.

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 27.06.2025 Vivek"

4.

Continuing his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in compliance of the order dated 27.06.2025, 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. 5.

Learned State counsel on instructions confirms the said averment made by counsel for the petitioner of joining the investigation on 29.06.2025 by the petitioner, and submits that as of now, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. 6.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7.

Since, petitioner has already joined the investigation and custodial interrogation is no more required; ad-interim bail order dated 27.06.2025, passed by this Court is hereby made absolute. Accordingly, present petition is allowed.

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.

8.

Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 02.09.2025 NainaRajput Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable:

YES/NO