Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder vs State Of Haryana on 18 April, 2026
CRM-M-17009
17009-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
217
CRM
CRM-M-17009-2026
Date of decision: 18.04.2026
RAVINDER
....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Present:- Mr. K.D.S. Hooda, Advocate and
M
Mr. Yashwir Singh Hooda, Advocate
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.0060 dated 21.02.2026 registered under Sections 115, 118(1), 190, 191(2), 333 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station City Tohana, District Fatehabad Fatehabad.
2. On 01.04.2026, the following order was passed by this Court: -
"Prayer Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of an anticipatory ticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0060 dated 21.02.2026 registered under Sections 115, 118(1), 190, 191(2), 333 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station City Tohana, District GURPREET Fatehabad.2026.04.18 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document.
CRM-M-17009 17009-2026 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said incident. He further submitted that the petitioner has been roped in the present FIR later on by the complainant. He argued that that the alleged occurrence took place on 18.02.2026 but the FIR in question was registered on 21.02.2026 i.e. after an unexplained delay of 03 days, casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. He argued that the petitioner was not even present on the spo spott at the time of commission of offence. He further argued that in fact, the parties are neighbourers and dispute in the present case arose on a petty issue i.e. throwing of garbage. He further argued that the complainant has concealed the material facts fr from om the Court and in fact one Chirag (son of the co co-accused-Ravi Ravi Anand) had also sustained injuries on his head in the quarrel. He further argued that the said incident occurred in the street and in the CCTV footage of the incident, it is visible that no on onee has entered into the house of the complainant, which itself falsify the case of the prosecution and thus, no offence under Section 333 of BNS, is made out against the petitioner, which has been added by the prosecution only to make the offence graver. Mo Moreover, reover, the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case and no recovery is to be effected from him. He submits that co-accused co accused Ravi Anand has already been granted concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 2 27.03.2026 passed in CRM-M-12923 12923-2026.
2026. Learned counsel has further 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 oppos opposed ed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature.
List on 18.04.2026.GURPREET 2026.04.18 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document.
CRM-M-17009 17009-2026 3 In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation within a week from today and would appear as and 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. T The he petitioners shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023."
2023.
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.
gation.
4. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions of ASI Rajesh Kumar, has submitted that the petitioner has ha joined the investigation and is no longer required for further investigation.
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 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.