Rahul Kumar v. State Of Haryana

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 23.02.2026 Rahul Kumar . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM:

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

Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana assisted by ASI Vishal, 32/DDR, PS City Dadri. **** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1.

In the present case, on 09.12.2025, following order was passed by this Court:- "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 hereunder:- Name & age of FIR No.

Date Section(s) Police Station District Petitioner (s) Rahul Kumar, aged about 28 years 20.07.2025 190, 191(2), 109(1), 61(2) and 111(2) of BNS and Sections 25-5459 of Arms Act City Dadri Charkhi Dadri 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia, contends, that as per the allegations, on 19.07.2025 at about 6:00 P.M., complainant, Neeraj, was present in a vegetable market in his car, bearing registration No.HR 19F 1118, when the accused persons, namely Ankit, Sahil, Sombir, Rahul, Vishal, Kake, and Nandu, arrived on motorcycles and in a vehicle bearing registration No.HR 19S 9080 began quarreling with him. When complainant attempted to flee in his car, accused Rahul struck the vehicle, causing Rahul's motorcycle to overturn. Thereafter, accused Ankit and Rahul allegedly fired shots at the complainant with the intent to kill him, though he managed to escape unharmed.

Allegation against the petitioner is that, he had supplied the pistol and cartridges used in the incident to accused Ankit @ Chotiwala approximately ten days prior to the occurrence. Counsel submits that merely supplying the weapon cannot render the petitioner liable for the incident that ultimately led to the registration of present FIR, particularly

- 2 - when petitioner had no knowledge of the intended use of the said weapon. 3.

It is further submitted that allegations against the petitioner arise solely from the disclosure statement of co-accused Ankit @ Chotiwala, and therefore, no custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. However, petitioner is ready to join the investigation and fully cooperate, if granted protection from arrest. Thus, counsel prays for concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present case. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

On advance notice, Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana, puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent - State, and seeks some time to file status report in the matter. 6.

Adjourned to 23.02.2026.

7.

Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating Agency. In the 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 abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.). 8.

Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over his passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport.

It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of the Court." 2.

Continuing his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in compliance of the order dated 09.12.2025, 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.

3.

Learned State counsel has filed status report dated 18.02.2026 in the Court today and the same is taken on record. Learned State counsel on instructions, confirms the said averment made by counsel for the petitioner of joining the investigation on 24.12.2025 by the petitioner, and submits that as of now, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation.

4.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5.

Since, petitioner has already joined the investigation and

- 3 - custodial interrogation is no more required; ad-interim bail order dated 09.12.2025, 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.

6.

Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.

7.

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 February 23, 2026 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No