Rahul Walia vs State Of Haryana
2025 Latest Caselaw 5291 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rahul Walia vs State Of Haryana on 18 November, 2025

CRM-M--63315-2025                                                            1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

104                                              CRM-M-63315-2025 (O&M)


Rahul Walia
                                                            ....Petitioner
                                          V/s
State of Haryana
                                                            ....Respondent
Date of decision: 18.11.2025
Date of Uploading : 18.11.2025

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:      Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Senior Advocate with
              Mr. Lavish, Advocate for the petitioner.
              Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
              Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
                                         *****
SUMEET
 UMEET GOEL,
       GOEL J. (Oral)

1. The present petition is the third attempt by the petitioner under

Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be

referred as 'the BNSS') for grant of pre pre-arrest/anticipatory bail in case

bearing FIR No.0225 dated 23.09.2024 23.09.2024,, registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 61(2), 115(2), 117(2), 140(3), 190, 191(3), 238,

251(2), 303(2), 310(2) and 351(2) of BNS and Section 25 of Arms Act,

1959 at Police Station GRP, Ambala Cantt, District Ambala.

The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of pre-

pre

arrest/anticipatory bail before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn

on 03.02.2025 and 07.07.2025 respectively and no opinion on merits have

been expressed therein. Thereafter, the present pet petition i.e. the third petition

1 of 10

for grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest anticipatory/pre arrest bail has been preferred by the petitioner

on 10.11.2025.

10.11.2025

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question pertains to an incident

which is stated to have occurred on 22.09.2024. The complainant na namely mely

Abhishek son of Sant Ram aged 23 years resident of House No.1126 Milap

Nagar, Ambala City, District Amabala alleged that he works as a labourer

and on 20.09.2024, he alongwith his friends namely Rohit, Nishant and

Sourav Kumar was travelling by train to Mata Vaishno Devi for darshan.

On 22.09.2024, the complainant alongwith friends purchased railway tickets

and boarded a train to Ambala Cantt at around 03:20 PM. On 23.09.2024,

at about 12:30 AM, the train reached Ambala Cantt, Railway Station. The

complainant omplainant and his friends went to the railway parking area to retrieve the

motorcycle that they had parked on 20.09.2024. One of the friend of the

complainant namely Sourav Kumar went inside with the parking slip while

the complainant, Rohit and Nishant waited outside. Suddenly, the

complainant heard screaming of Sourav Kumar and noticed that accused

Rahul Walia (petitioner herein) armed with a gandasa, accused Sharif @

Sahil Rathore, Mithu @ Vaibhav and Rudar Partap armed with iron

rods/pipes. Accused Rudar Partap hit on the right leg of the complainant

with a rod causing him to stagger. On seeing the attack, the three friends of

the complainant ran away from the spot. Then accused Abnubhav Sood

struck the complainant on the head with a heavy object. Accused Rimpi

Sardar put a pistol like object in the mouth of the complainant and

threatened to shoot him if he raised an alarm. Accused Deepak also

assaulted the complainant with an iron rod. Thereafter, all the accused 2 of 10

forcibly took the complainant in the vehicle and took him to a room where

they removed all the clothes of the complainant and beaten him. It was

further alleged that the accused urinated on the face of the complainant,

broke his right leg below the knee and caused bleeding from his head head.. The

accused also took the mobile phone, ATM card and purse and forced the

complainant to disclose the PIN of the ATM card. Several others

accomplices of accused Rahul Walia whose names the complainant did not

know also caused injuries to the complainant complainant.. Later, accused Rahul Walia

(petitioner herein), Anubhav Sood, Mithu @ Vaibhav and Rudar Partap had

left the complainant on the stretcher trolley lying in front of the emergency

gate of Government hospital, Sector -6, 6, Panchkula at around 04:00 AM.

Later the complainant was admitted in the hospital. On these set of

allegations, the instant FIR was registered and investigation ensued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in questi question as no specific

injury has been attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel has further

iterated that the petitioner was not in possession of any vehicle on the

alleged date of occurrence and the allegations contained in the impugned

FIR are vague, baseless baseless and devoid of any substantive material. Learned

counsel has further submitted that the allegations of causing injuries are

directed towards co-accused co accused and the petitioner has been roped in merely by

way of general and omnibus allegations. Furthermor Furthermore, e, the petitioner was

not present in any of the purported video recordings pertaining to the allege

incident. According to learned counsel, the investigating agency despite

lacking any incriminating material against the petitioner, is attempting to 3 of 10

falsely y implicate the petitioner which is entirely baseless. According to

learned counsel, in the absence of substantive and incomplete material, the

entire prosecution narrative is nothing but an abuse of process. It has been

further submitted that there is no need for custodial interrogation of the

petitioner as he is ready eady to join investigation and has no criminal

antecedents. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding

from the process of justice in case he is enlarged on pre pre-arrest arrest bail. On

strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated

for.

4. Per contra,, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of

anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the present petition is not

maintainable, as it constitutes constitutes a third petition for anticipatory bail, without

there being any substantial change in circumstances, thereby failing both on

procedural grounds and on merits. Learned State counsel has submitted that

the earlier two petitions were dismissed as withdrawn on 03.02.2025 .2025 and

07.07.2025 before this Court and neither any prayer was made nor was any

liberty granted to the petitioner to file afresh with better particulars.

Accordingly, the State counsel has argued that the instant petition deserves

dismissal on this score alone.

alone Learned State counsel, while opposing the

plea in hand on merits, has submitted that the offence committed by the

petitioner is serious in nature. He has submitted that the allegations in the

FIR disclose a serious offence of kidnapping, confinement, robbery, assault

with deadly weapons and humiliation of the complainant. According to

learned State counsel, specific roles have been attributed to the petitioner,

including his active participation in kidnapping, beat beating, ing, confinement and 4 of 10

robbery. Furthermore, the vehicle and weapons used in the offence are yet

to be recovered and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary.

necessary

He has further emphasized that releasing the petitioner on bail at this crucial

stage ge may hamper the ongoing investigation and potentially lead to

tampering with evidence or influencing of witnesses. Accordingly, a prayer

has been made for the dismissal of the instant petition in order to facilitate

effective investigation into the alleged alleged offence.

4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has

vociferously opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and has

raised submissions in tandem with the State counsel. Learned counsel has

pointed out that the complainant in an injured witness whose testimony

carries high evidentiary value. According to learned counsel, the petitioner

has multiple cases pending against him which exhibits a tendency to

influence witnesses. On the basis of these submissions, the dismissal of the

instant petition is entreated for.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have

gone through the available record of the case.

6. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by

this Court in a titled as Bhisham Singh ngh vs. State of Haryana, 2024(3)

RCR(Criminal) 65, 65 relevant whereof reads as under:

under:-

"11. As an epilogue to the above rumination, the following principles emerge:

I Second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., 1973 is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof.

5 of 10

II Such second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed sed as not pressed/dismissed for non non-prosecution prosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits. III For the second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial cchange hange in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice.

IV No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/ facts/circumstance.

circumstance. Accordingly, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s).

V In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s), ccogent ogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petiti petition(s) on(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed.

VI Once a plea for anticipatory bail has been dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non non-prosecution prosecution or dismissed on merits by the High Court, no second/ second/successive successive anticipatory bail petition(s) shall be entertained by a Sessions Court."

7. The present petition is a third petition for grant of anticipatory

bail by the petitioner. A second/third anticipatory bail petition is indeed

maintainable under law; however, it requires demonstration of a substantial

change in circumstances since the earlier petition. It is a settled proposition

of law that such a change must be significant and not merely superficial or

technical, to warrant reconsideration. This st standard andard ensures that the remedy

6 of 10

of successive bail petitions is not misused through repeated filings but is

available when new and material factors arise that alter the initial

assessment of the case. The first anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner was

dismissed as withdrawn on 03.02.2025 and the second petition stands

dismissed as withdrawn on 07.07.2025 07.07.2025. The instant petition i.e. third

petition for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed thereafter on

10.11.2025 No fresh substantial change in circ 10.11.2025. circumstance umstance has been brought

forward which would indicate that the petitioner is entitled to maintain his

third petition for grant of anticipatory bail. From the entire factual

conspectus brought forward in the present petition, no fresh ground or

circumstance is made out so as to enable the petitioner to file and maintain circumstance

the third anticipatory bail petition. However, since the first and second

anticipatory bail petitions were dismissed as withdrawn and there were no

adjudication on merits thereof, this Court deems it appropriate to decide the

instant one on merits thereof as well.

8. As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably,

serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. The FIR prima

facie discloses commission of disturbing rbing and brutal incident in which the

complainant, an injured witness has given a detailed, consistent and specific

account of the role played by each accused including the petitioner. The

prosecution version discloses that the complainant was attacked llate ate at night

soon after reaching the railway station, assaulted with deadly weapons,

threatened at gunpoint, forcibly taken away in a vehicle, wrongfully

confined and beaten mercilessly. The complainant was also humiliated by

urination on his face, robbed of his personal belongings and thereafter 7 of 10

abandoned outside a government hospital. These allegations, taken together

with the grievous injuries reflected in the medical record undeniably

disclose the commission of extremely grave and heinous offences for which

custodial interrogation of the accused is not only desirable but necessary.

9. The plea raised by the petitioner that no specific role has been

assigned to him is belied by the very contents of the FIR wherein he is

clearly named among the assailants who participated in the kidnapping,

assault and confinement of the complainant. At the stage of consideration

of an anticipatory anticipatory bail petition, the Court is required to determine whether

prima facie case is made out or not. The statement of the injured witness

duly corroborated by medical evidence carries substantial weight and cannot

be lightly disregarded particularly when the injuries suffered are grave. It

goes without saying that in the instant case, it was specifically alleged in the

FIR that the petitioner along with other co co-accused accused was a part of an

unlawful assembly and involved in alleged occurrence thereby endangering ing

the life of the complainant. The nature of weapons alleged and the

involvement of multiple accused and indicate a degree of planning and

aggression.

10. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for

grant of anticipatory bail, the the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding

individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to

reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to

the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as aalso lso the deeper and

wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is

no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against 8 of 10

the petitioners. The material which has come on record and preliminary

investigation, appear to be established a reasonable basis for the investigation,

accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the

petitioners, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective

investigation. In State v. Anil Sharma [State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7

SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC

p. 189, para 6)

"6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage vantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-

pre arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree degree methods need not be countenanced, for, su such ch an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conductt themselves as offenders.

offenders."

11. In view of the severity of the allegations allegations, the specific role

attributed to the petitioner, the corroborative medical evidence and the stage

of investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner

does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of

the case in hand. The nature of the injuries, the manner of the assault and the

subsequent conduct of the petitioner and co co-accused accused collectively

demonstrate that the present case is not a case where pre pre-arrest arrest bail can be

granted. The petition is, thus, devoid devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.

9 of 10

12. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression

of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.

13. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

                                                    (SUMEET GOEL)
                                                       JUDGE

November 18, 2025
Ajay


             Whether speaking/reasoned:               Yes/No
             Whether reportable:                      Yes/No




                              10 of 10