Satyam Soni vs State Of Haryana

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Satyam Soni vs State Of Haryana on 18 April, 2026

               CRM-M-14180
                     14180-2026                           1



                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                                             AT CHANDIGARH
               212

                                                                   CRM
                                                                   CRM-M-14180-2026
                                                                   Date of decision: 18.04.2026


               SATYAM SONI
                                                                                      ....Petitioner
                                                         Versus

               STATE OF HARYANA
                                                                                     ....Respondent


               CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL

               Present:-          Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate
                                  M
                                  for the petitioner.

                                  Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana
                                                           Haryana.

                                  *****

               RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS"), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.01 dated 02.01.2026 registered under Sections 109(1), 118(1), 191(3), 61(2) and 3333 33 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25(1)(B) (a)-54-

(a) -5959 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Panjokhra, District Ambala.

Ambala

2. On 01.04.2026, the following order was passed by this Court: -

"Prayer Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 48 482 2 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.01 dated 02.01.2026 registered under Sections 109(1), 118(1), 191(3), 61(2) and 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya GURPREET 2026.04.18 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

CRM-M-14180 14180-2026 2 Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25(1)(B) (a)

(a)-54-59 59 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Panjokhra, District Ambala.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said incident. He argued that if the contents of the FIR are taken to be true, even then no specific injury has been attributed to the present petitioner and in fact, it is a case of no injury. He further argued that Section 109(1) of BNS was added by the prosecution only to make the offence graver. Further, co-accused co Raj aj Kumar @ Raju and Shivam Soni have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 12.02.2026 and 18.02.2026, respectively. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has furth further er submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report in the matter, which is taken on record and w while hile referring to the same, he has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature.

Adjourned to 18.04.2026.

In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation within a week from today and would appear as and investigation when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, he shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner satisfaction shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023."

2023.

authenticity of this document.

CRM-M-14180 14180-2026 3

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order dated 01.04.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner ha has joined the investigation.

4. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions of ASI Sanjeev Kumar, has submitted that the petitioner has ha joined the investigation and is no longer required for further investigation.

investigatio

5. In view of the statement made by learned State counsel, the interim order dated 01.04.2026 passed by this Court, is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join investigation, as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall also abide abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

BNSS (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) 18.04.2026 JUDGE Gurpreet

i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No

ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No GURPREET 2026.04.18 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.