Jasbir Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jasbir Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana on 28 April, 2026

                               On 17.03.2026,, this Court had passed the following order:
                                                                                   order:-

                                       "Petitioners,
                                        Petitioners, who are accused in case FIR No.49 dated
                               22.02.2023 registered against him, for commission of
                               offences punishable u/s 120-B,B, 182, 195, 211, 465, 466, 469,
                               471, 506 IPC at P.S. Munak, District Karnal, have prayed for
                               grant of pre-arrest bail.
                                       While mentioning the factual backdrop of the case,
                               learned counsel for the petitioner contends that complainant
                               Amarjit Kaur was marrie   married to one Gurjant Singh.
                               Unfortunately, the matrimonial life of this couple was not
                               smooth. On a complaint moved by Amarjit Kaur, criminal
                               proceedings vide FIR No.340 dated 29.11.2022 were
                               initiated against her husband and other relatives for
                               commission of offences punishable u/s 498  498-A, 323, 379-B,
                               427, 34 IPC. On the same day, her husband got registered an
PARVEEN KUMAR
2026.04.28

17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. FIR No.341 dated 29.11.2022 u/s 325, 452, 506 and 34 IPC. The said FIR has since been cancelled. Investigating Agency prepared a 'Kalandra' u/s 182 IPC against Gurjant Singh. On the representation of Amarjit Kaur, the present criminal proceedings vide FIR No.49 dated 22.02.2023 came to be registered against her husband and Randhir Singh. In the said case, both the accused were granted the concession of interim anticipatory bail earlier, which was confirmed later. Pursuant thereto, a challan was filed. An application u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. was moved on the basis of which, bail of the husband of complainant namely Gurjant Singh was cancelled. Admittedly, the said order of cancellation of bail had been stayed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.08.2025 passed in CRM-M-44438-2025.

Learned counsel further contends that complainant, a chronic litigant, has been filing frivolous complaints one after another, only with a view to settle scores with her husband. Anybody who is associated with him (complainant's husband) is involved in frivolous litigation. It is further the submission of learned counsel that in the factual backdrop of the case mentioned hereinabove, multiplicity of litigation between the parties, though petitioners are not in any which way involved in the incident but being law- abiding citizens, they are willing to join the investigation as and when called for by the IO.

Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the request for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that petitioners in connivance with co-accused Gurjant Singh got his finger fractured through co-accused Randhir Singh, who had assisted husband of the complainant in preparing a forged MLR in which husband of the complainant had been shown to have suffered a fracture.

Heard. Documents on record perused.

It has been fairly conceded by both the learned counsel for parties that the main accused namely Gurjant Singh has been granted the concession of bail.

In view of the submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners and without adverting to the merits of the case, petitioners are directed to join the investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating Agency. In the event of their arrest, petitioners shall be released on ad- interim bail, subject to their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioners shall also be abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.).

Adjourned to 28.04.2026.

To be tagged along with CRM-M-12190-2026."

3. Learned counsel submits that in pursuance of the afore-

mentioned order, the petitioners have not only joined investigation but also fully cooperated with the investigating agency. He further submits that in case the investigating agency requires the petitioners to appear, they shall make themselves available without demur.

4. Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Sandeep affirms the factum of joining the investigation by the petitioners and cooperating with the investigating agency. He also submits that at this stage, the petitioners are not required for further custodial interrogation.

5. In view of the above and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and the order dated 17.03.2026 granting interim bail to them, is hereby made absolute, subject to compliance of conditions as specified under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.

6. However, it is made clear that if the petitioners fail to join and cooperate with the investigating agency as and when required, the State would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of the present anticipatory bail granted to them.