Himanshu Yadav vs State Of Haryana And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 6261 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Himanshu Yadav vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 16 December, 2025

                           CRM-M-33118-2025 (O&M)
                           CRM-M-34338-2025 (O&M)                     1


                                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                                         AT CHANDIGARH
                           (104)

                           1.                           CRM-M-33118-2025 (O&M)


                           HIMANSHU YADAV                                          .....PETITIONER

                                                                VERSUS

                           STATE OF HARYANA                                        .....RESPONDENT

                           2.                           CRM-M-34338-2025 (O&M)


                           HIMANSHU YADAV                                          .....PETITIONER

                                                                VERSUS

                           STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                             .....RESPONDENTS


                               1. Date when Order / Judgment was reserved               02.12.2025
                               2. Date of Decision / pronouncement of Order /           16.12.2025
                                  Judgment
                               3. Date of uploading Order / Judgment                    16.12.2025
                               4. Whether operative part or full Order /                  FULL
                                  Judgment is pronounced
                               5. Delay, if any, in pronouncing of full Order /     NOT APPLICABLE
                                  Judgment, and reasons thereof
                               6. Whether Speaking/Reasoned                             YES/NO
                               7. Whether Reportable                                     YES/NO


                           CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.

                           Present:        Mr. R.S. Malik, Advocate,
                                           for the petitioner(s) (in both the cases).

                                           Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana.

                                           Mr. Ankit Chahal, Advocate,
                                           for the complainant.



LAVISHA
2025.12.16 15:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
PHHC, Chandigarh
                            CRM-M-33118-2025 (O&M)
                           CRM-M-34338-2025 (O&M)                 2

                           SANJAY VASHISTH, J (ORAL)

1. By this common order, both the aforementioned petitions,

i.e. CRM-M-33118-2025 and CRM-M-34338-2025, are being disposed

of, as they have arisen out of the same FIR, i.e. FIR No.48 dated

10.02.2025, registered under Sections 318(2), 340, 336(3) and 3(5) of

BNS, (Sections 338 and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 added later on), at Police

Station Rajendra Park, District Gurugram.

2. CRM-M-33118-2025 has been filed by the petitioner,

Himanshu Yadav, aged 32 years, under Section 482 of the BNSS, seeking

the concession of pre-arrest bail, on the ground that although, regular bail

was granted to the petitioner on 09.05.2025, additional offences under

Sections 338 and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 were subsequently added.

However, the prayer for anticipatory bail in respect of the newly added

offences was disposed of, on 10.06.2025, by the Court of learned

Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Vacation Judge, Gurugram, while

observing as under:-

"Therefore, keeping in view aforesaid facts and circumstances, application in hand is disposed of with directions that if application for cancellation of bail of applicant is allowed by the learned trial Court then applicant shall not be immediately sent to custody or arrested by the police and he shall be given at least seven days notice by the investigating officer, providing opportunity to applicant to avail remedy under the law. Hence, the application stands disposed of."

3. On the same day, i.e. 10.06.2025, an application for

cancellation of bail, moved by the complainant on account of addition of

new offences, i.e. Sections 338 and 61(2) of BNS, 2023, was taken up

CRM-M-33118-2025 (O&M)

and allowed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Gurugram.

4. From the order dated 10.06.2025, it further transpires that

another application had also been moved by the petitioner, Himanshu

Yadav, seeking exemption from personal appearance. The said

application was dismissed earlier in the day, with the Court insisting that

the petitioner's counsel appear through a proxy counsel representing the

petitioner before the learned Magistrate. Directions were also issued to

the accused to share his 'live location'. Even the request for adjournment

made by the proxy counsel, on the ground that petitioner's anticipatory

bail application was already pending adjudication and stood reserved for

orders at 4:00 p.m., was declined.

In the latter half of the day, at about 16:06 hours, the file was

again taken up, whereupon a copy of the order dated 10.06.2025 passed

by the Court of Shri Amit Gautam, learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Gurugram, was produced by the Munshi of arguing counsel for the

petitioner.

Despite the same, the application for cancellation of bail was

allowed in its entirety, overlooking the fact that regular bail had already

been granted to the petitioner in respect of the originally registered

offences, i.e. Sections 340, 336(3), 318(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

5. Consequently, while advancing arguments in the present

petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, having been left

with no other efficacious remedy, instant petition, i.e. CRM-M-33118-

CRM-M-33118-2025 (O&M)

2025 for anticipatory bail, has been filed qua all the offences, before this

Court.

6. Counsel for the petitioner also argued that upon addition of

new offences, it was not open to the complainant to seek cancellation of

bail. Rather, it was incumbent upon the investigating officer to approach

the Court and seek permission to arrest the accused by assigning cogent

reasons justifying such necessity. In this regard, reliance has been placed

upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep

Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and another, 2019(3) RCR (Criminal) 538 :

Law Finder Doc ID #1526592.

It is further contended that there was no occasion to cancel

the bail already granted to the petitioner.

7. As per counsel for the petitioner, addition of offences would

only afford an opportunity to the accused, including the petitioner herein,

to avail appropriate legal remedies and seek protection from arrest in

respect of the newly added offences.

Consequently, placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pradeep Ram's case (supra), learned counsel

prays for allowing the present petition.

8. 2nd petition, i.e. CRM-M-34338-2025, has also been filed by

the petitioner, Himanshu Yadav, seeking quashing of the order dated

10.06.2025 (Annexure P-13), whereby bail granted to the petitioner was

cancelled by allowing the application moved by the complainant on

account of the addition of further offences, i.e. Sections 338 and 61(2) of

the BNS, 2023.

CRM-M-33118-2025 (O&M)

9. Sequence of events has already been noticed here above

while recording the contentions in CRM-M-33118-2025, wherein it has

been elaborately explained that subsequent to the grant of regular bail,

upon introduction of the additional offences under Sections 338 and

61(2) of BNS, 2023, the anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner

was disposed of, with a direction to the investigating officer to issue

notice, and yet, on the very same day, i.e. 10.06.2025, application for

cancellation of bail filed by the complainant, Ashwani Kumar

(respondent No.2), was allowed.

Consequently, in the present petition, petitioner challenges

the order cancelling bail passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Gurugram, asserting the same to be illegal and non est in the eyes

of law, on the ground that an order granting regular bail could not have

been rendered ineffective, unless an application under Section 439 of the

Cr.P.C., supported by substantive grounds, had been filed.

10. It is in this background that both the present petitions have

been instituted by the petitioner-accused, Himanshu Yadav, before this

Court.

11. On the other hand, learned State counsel, along with learned

counsel appearing for respondent No.2, Ashwani Kumar, jointly submit

that petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.

It is contended that petitioner was required to join the

investigation, in compliance with the notice dated 14.06.2025 issued by

the Investigating Officer, vide notice serial No. 457-5A (Annexure P-11

in CRM-M-33118-2025).

CRM-M-33118-2025 (O&M)

It is further submitted that the said notice was issued by the

Investigating Officer pursuant to the directions dated 10.06.2025 passed

by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, in the anticipatory bail

petition filed by the petitioner.

12. It is further argued that once the regular bail granted to the

petitioner has been cancelled, the petition for anticipatory bail is not

maintainable, and petitioner is required to surrender before the Court and

seek regular bail, particularly in view of the fact that his request for

exemption from personal appearance has already been declined.

13. It is additionally contended that present petitions deserve

dismissal, as the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Pradeep

Ram's case (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, is

not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Accordingly, learned State counsel as well as counsel for

respondent No.2 pray for dismissal of both the present petitions.

14. This Court has heard the submissions advanced by learned

counsel for the respective parties at length, and has also perused the

record available before it. The judgment in the case of Pradeep Ram's

case (supra) has also been carefully examined with the able assistance of

learned counsel for the petitioner.

15. Factual matrix leading to the registration of the criminal case

against the petitioner is that an agreement to sell dated 09.10.2024 was

executed in respect of a plot, ad-measuring 605 square yards (1 kanal) for

a total sale consideration of Rs.20 lacs. The target date for execution and

registration of the sale deed was fixed as 09.11.2024. At the time of

CRM-M-33118-2025 (O&M)

execution of the agreement, the buyers/accused persons, namely, Tanuj

Kumar Singh and Himanshu Yadav (petitioner herein), paid a sum of

Rs.7,10,000/- as earnest money. As the transaction did not fructify,

disputes arose between the parties, whereupon the petitioner issued a

legal notice dated 18.12.2024 calling upon the complainant to execute the

sale deed. The said legal notice was replied on 04.01.2025, and

eventually the dispute culminated in filing of a civil suit for possession

and for decree of specific performance on 22.01.2025 before the Courts

at Gurugram, which is stated to be pending, till date.

Subsequent to the institution of civil suit, respondent No.2,

Ashwani Kumar, lodged the FIR in question against the buyers of the

plot. Initially, FIR was registered for offences under Sections 318(2),

340, 336(3) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023.

16. Vide order dated 09.05.2025, Court of learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, had already granted regular bail to the

accused/petitioner, Himanshu Yadav. The relevant portion of the said

order reads as under:--

"Present: Ms. Dimple Ld., APP for the State assisted by Sh. Ritesh Dhir, Advocate for complainant.

Accused Tanuj produced in custody represented by Sh. Rao Bhagat, Adv

Accused Himanshu produced in custody represented by Sh. R.K. Yadav, Advocate.

I.O has come present. At this stage, an application for secking 14 days judicial remand of accused Himanshu moved.

Reply to bail application of accused Himanshu filed. At this stage, it is stated by I.O that application

CRM-M-33118-2025 (O&M)

for judicial remand of accused Himanshu be read as reply to bail application.

Augments on the bail application heard. During the two days police remand of the accused, the investigating authorities did not recover any evidence, including the allegedly executed forged agreement to sell. It is stated by the I.O that no further assistance of accused is required in the investigation and an application seeking 14 days judicial remand of accused Himanshu has already been moved. It further appears that the investigating authorities have not verified the complainant's signatures, even though the complainant is said to have signed the purportedly forged agreement.

For the reasons detailed herein and the fact that trial of the case will take long time and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the accused in custody, accused is admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.60,000/- with one surety in the like amount. Requisite bonds furnished which are accepted and attested. Accused Himanshu be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

At this stage, an application seeking 3 days police remand of accused Tanuj filed. The same is partly allowed vide separate detailed order of even date, with direction that he be produced on 11.05.2025.

At this stage, an application for bail has been filed on behalf of accuesd Tanuj. Reply to the said application be also filed on 11.05.2025.

At this stage, an application for taking specimen signature filed on behalf of accused Himanshu. Accused Himanshu has stated that his no objection to give specimen signature, vide separately recorded statement. In view of the facts mentioned in the application and no objection by the accused, the same is allowed. Specimen signatures taken which are accepted and attested by the undersinged and handed over I.O for further investigation.

Now to come up on 11.05.2025, the date already fixed for producing accused Tanuj from police remand as granted today.

Date of Order:09.05.2025

(Rupam) Judicial Magistrate - Ist Class Gurugram UID NO. HR0557"

CRM-M-33118-2025 (O&M)

17. From perusal of the bail order, it is evident that upon an

application moved by the petitioner himself for furnishing specimen

signatures, and in absence of any objection on his part, the said

application was allowed. The "specimen signatures" were obtained in

Court, duly attested by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, and

thereafter, handed over to the Investigating Officer for the purposes of

further investigation.

Immediately thereafter, on 14.05.2025, complainant moved

an application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973, seeking cancellation of bail on the ground that Section 338 of the

BNS, 2023 had not been added by the Investigating Officer.

On the very next day, i.e. 15.05.2025, the Investigating

Officer added Sections 338 and 61(2) of BNS, 2023. It is, therefore,

manifest that the additional offences were incorporated subsequent to the

filing of application for cancellation of bail. Consequently, a peculiar

situation arose for the petitioner, and before any adjudication on the

application seeking cancellation of regular bail, petitioner approached the

Court on 09.06.2025 by filing an application for anticipatory bail.

In all likelihood, this was the appropriate legal remedy

available to the petitioner, as an alternative course would have been to

await a notice or moving of an application by the Investigating Officer to

the Area Magistrate for seeking custody in respect of the newly added

offences.

18. While dealing with the anticipatory bail application, and

noticing the fact that petitioner was already on regular bail, vide order

CRM-M-33118-2025 (O&M)

dated 09.05.2025, neither application for re-arrest had been moved by the

police, nor the order cancelling bail had been passed, learned Additional

Sessions Judge-cum-Vacation Judge observed that, technically, an

application for anticipatory bail would not be maintainable.

However, visualising a hypothetical situation wherein the

application for cancellation of bail might be allowed and petitioner could

be remanded to custody or arrested immediately, thereby frustrating his

right to seek appropriate legal remedy, learned Additional Sessions Judge

issued a direction to the Investigating Officer not to arrest the petitioner

unless he was served with at least seven days' prior notice, so as to afford

him an opportunity to avail remedies available under law.

19. Upon going through the order dated 10.06.2025, this Court

is constrained to observe with surprise that no emergent circumstances

have been discerned which would have necessitated learned Magistrate to

take up and decide the application for cancellation of bail on the very

same day, particularly after being apprised that the order in the

anticipatory bail application had been reserved after hearing arguments.

It is further noticed that in the latter part of the day, at about

16:06 hours, learned Magistrate, Ms. Rupam, JMIC, Gurugram, again

took up the application for cancellation of bail, despite producing of the

order dated 10.06.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Gurugram, whereby directions had been issued to the Investigating

Officer to serve a seven days' notice upon the petitioner before effecting

arrest, and cancelled the bail same very day, i.e., 10.06.2025.

CRM-M-33118-2025 (O&M)

Even thereafter also, learned Magistrate insisted for personal

appearance of the petitioner, despite being aware of that by that time, no

protection had been granted by any Court in respect of the newly added

offences, and consequently, declined the application seeking exemption

from personal appearance.

During the proceedings on the application for cancellation of

bail, petitioner was never made aware that his right to seek anticipatory

bail in respect of the newly added offences would remain protected,

unless he was afforded an opportunity to avail such remedy.

20. In the considered view of this Court, petitioner was, thus,

placed in an anomalous and precarious situation, on account of which he

could not have reasonably joined the investigation in respect of the newly

added offences, pursuant to the notice dated 14.06.2025 issued by the

Investigating Officer of Police Station Rajendra Park, Gurugram.

It also needs to be noticed that application seeking

cancellation of bail was filed on 14.05.2025, whereas notice to join the

investigation was issued on 14.06.2025, even though the additional

offences had, in fact, been added on 15.05.2025.

21. Sequence of events as detailed in the petition has not even

been controverted by learned State counsel in the status report dated

06.08.2025 filed in CRM-M-34338-2025.

22. Coming to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

of Pradeep Ram (supra), which has been relied upon by counsel for the

petitioner, it is apposite to read paragraph Nos.27 and 29 of the said

judgment, and the same are reproduced here under : -

CRM-M-33118-2025 (O&M)

"27. Relying on the above said order, learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent State ought to get first the order dated 10.03.2016 granting bail to appellant cancelled before seeking custody of the appellant. It may be true that by mere addition of an offence in a criminal case, in which accused is bailed out, investigating authorities itself may not proceed to arrest the accused and need to obtain an order from the Court, which has released the accused on the bail. It is also open for the accused, who is already on bail and with regard to whom serious offences have been added to apply for bail in respect of new offences added and the Court after applying the mind may either refuse the bail or grant the bail with regard to new offences. In a case, bail application of the accused for newly added offences is rejected, the accused can very well be arrested. In all cases, where accused is bailed out under orders of the Court and new offences are added including offences of serious nature, it is not necessary that in all cases earlier bail should be cancelled by the Court before granting permission to arrest an accused on the basis of new offences. The power under Sections 437(5) and 439(2) are wide powers granted to the court by the Legislature under which Court can permit an accused to be arrested and commit him to custody without even cancelling the bail with regard to earlier offences. Sections 437(5) and 439(2) cannot be read into restricted manner that order for arresting the accused and commit him to custody can only be passed by the Court after cancelling the earlier bail.

29. In view of the foregoing discussions, we arrive at following conclusions in respect of a circumstance where after grant of bail to an accused, further cognizable and non-bailable offences are added:-

(i) The accused can surrender and apply for bail for newly added cognizable and non-bailable offences. In event of refusal of bail, the accused can certainly be arrested.

(ii) The investigating agency can seek order from the court under Section 437(5) or 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for arrest of the accused and his custody.

(iii) The Court, in exercise of power under Section 437(5) or 439(2) of Cr.P.C., can direct for taking into custody the accused who has already been granted bail after cancellation of his bail.

CRM-M-33118-2025 (O&M)

The Court in exercise of power under Section 437(5) as well as Section 439(2) can direct the person who has already been granted bail to be arrested and commit him to custody on addition of graver and non- cognizable offences which may not be necessary always with order of cancelling of earlier bail.

(iv) In a case where an accused has already been granted bail, the investigating authority on addition of an offence or offences may not proceed to arrest the accused, but for arresting the accused on such addition of offence or offences it need to obtain an order to arrest the accused from the Court which had granted the bail."

23. From the reading of the observations made by Hon'ble the

Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Ram (supra) it is clear that in case of

addition of additional offences, the accused can surrender and apply for

bail in the newly added cognizable/non-cognizable offences, and in the

event of decline of bail, he can be arrested.

Further, in a case where an accused has already been granted

bail, the investigating authority upon addition of an offence/offences may

not proceed to arrest the accused, but before arresting the accused in the

added offence(s), would first be required to obtain an order of arrest from

the Court which had granted the bail to the accused in the offences

recorded at the time of lodging of the crime. For this purpose, the

investigating agency may approach the concerned Court, under Section

437(5) [Section 480 of BNSS] or Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. [Section 483 of

BNSS], for arrest of the accused and his custody.

24. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not satisfied

with the order dated 10.06.2025 passed by learned Magistrate, cancelling

the bail already granted to the petitioner.

CRM-M-33118-2025 (O&M)

25. Additionally, it is imperative to note that in absence of any

violation of the conditions of bail in respect of the offences for which the

petitioner had already been granted regular bail, vide order dated

09.05.2025, the said order of regular bail could not have been reversed by

the same Court.

Moreover, learned Magistrate failed to adhere to the

observations recorded in the concluding part of the order dated

09.05.2025, wherein it was specifically noticed that the specimen

signatures of the petitioner had already been obtained and duly attested

by the Court itself, before being handed over to the Investigating Officer.

Therefore, apart from lacking jurisdiction to revisit and

cancel its own order granting bail, learned Magistrate was also required

to independently examine the necessity of custodial interrogation of the

petitioner, particularly in the light of findings already recorded in the bail

order dated 09.05.2025.

26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, order dated 10.06.2025

passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, cancelling

the bail granted to the petitioner, is hereby set-aside, being wholly

unsustainable in law and having been passed on conjectures and

surmises.

Consequently, application moved by respondent No.2

seeking cancellation of bail shall also stands dismissed.

27. Hence, petition, i.e. CRM-M-34338-2025, is allowed.

28. Relying upon the observations made in paragraph Nos.27

and 29 of the judgment in Pradeep Ram's case (supra), passed by

CRM-M-33118-2025 (O&M)

Hon'ble the Apex Court, petition, i.e. CRM-M-33118-2025 is also

allowed.

Consequently, on joining investigation, petitioner -

Himanshu Yadav, be released on bail in respect of the additional offences

also, i.e. Sections 338 and 61(2) of BNS, 2023, upon furnishing bail

bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or the concerned

Area Magistrate.

Needless to mention here that once the order dated

10.06.2025 cancelling the bail of the petitioner is set-aside, bail bonds

already furnished by the petitioner shall stand automatically revived.

Consequently, petitioner shall not be required to furnish any

fresh bail bonds, in view of the restoration of the original bail order dated

09.05.2025, by which, petitioner had already been granted the concession

of regular bail for the offences under Sections 318(2), 340, 336(3) and

3(5) of BNS, provided the same have not already been forfeited to the

State. Otherwise, petitioner would furnish the fresh bail bonds on the

same terms.

29. With the reasons recorded here above, both the present

petitions stand disposed of.

30. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other

connected case.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) 16.12.2025 JUDGE Lavisha