Vinod Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Another



  

  
   


          

      !



"#$ %%#&'()()*
+
 ,

 


 - .

      

 '/ 0 ) -
)-) 1 0)
2222
 
 





 
Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Rahul Sidher, Advocate for respondent No.2 in both cases.
)-) 1 03 ) 0 ! 
"#

 
"$

"%

##
 

 
#
 


#
#&

'
( 



"
&
"%
 



)*+ +

, 
-'*

 
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents No.2 in both cases namely Narender Singh Jangra and Nathu Ram by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fatehabad vide orders dated 29.03.2025 and 30.07.2025 respectively passed in Criminal Case bearing No.COMI-35 of 2023 dated 19.09.2023 titled as 'Ramphal and another Versus Nathu Ram etc.' pending in the Court of learned JMIC, Tohana.



+
!  

 

 
 
 
 

.'


,
 

 
#&%
!

 



/&





. 
#

##


 
#&

 

-00000012

 
 3

 $
$ #
4"

 #
, 
 %




( 
#&
#

#&
"  
 
&
$


 
"
 
&
$ 
56
.7+0

0808'0'+


)08

)'0

69

&


( 
: 
5 "
$


&%

& 
 
 

 


$$ 

 
#
 
#&
#

 #&
#&
" $
.COMI-35 of 2023 dated 19.09.2023 titled as 'Ramphal and another Versus Nathu Ram etc.' against all the accused persons, wherein the trial Court summoned all the accused persons including respondents No.2 herein. ;,
&

 #
,
&
#"&%
,  "%
 
 


$ 

%

#
 +*0000012

 
&&#
"


%#
,
#

)
/ 
9&



 
 

.

'


$$
 %
"&
#
 
9 

& 
&

<$
5 "

#$
  

29.03.2025 and 30.07.2025 respectively. However, after getting the anticipatory bail from the Court, the respondents resiled from the  #

 of the compromise and denied to pay the agreed amount of Rs.38,00,000/-. He further submits that since the private respondents No.2 failed to abide by the  #

 of the compromise, the benefit of anticipatory bail granted to them ought to be cancelled/withdrawn.



8

 
& 
&

 

.'

"

 #&%

 


 
$ 
 
 
 1#&


" $ 

 
%
$

$
# &
, 
&
, 
   
"%
 
9 
=
&&
 
 %
"&
$ 

 #
;
 

 
&"&

"
#
;
 %
 $&%
>
6

 
& 
&

 

 
 
  *

5 #

  &
 &
 
 


 
 
 




#


  

%
$ 

 
 

&,, whereby he may be able to allege that any of the  #

 of Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 have been violated by the private respondents. Moreover, a careful perusal of impugned orders dated 29.03.2025 and 30.07.2025 respectively (Annexure P-4) clearly shows that the private respondents were not granted the benefit of anticipatory bail on the basis of any compromise allegedly arrived at between the parties, rather the impugned orders have been passed on merits while holding that since the private respondents have been summoned to face trial in a complaint case, their custodial interrogation would not be necessary.

Even none of the  #

 cited in the impugned orders have been stated to be violated by the private respondents. It appears that the petitioner has filed the instant petitions as a tool to recover the alleged amount, which his not permissible in the eyes of law. 

6
&$ 
 
"

$ 

#


 
 




&
 
 %
"&
$ 


.



77
. $

 "
 &&
"
 


3 
 

 
# 
 

;, 
 
 1#&
,&
"

&" %


 %
 $
$
 
 

  #"&

 
,
&,
)-) 1 0


(3*)