[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pawan Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 27 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(107) CRM-M-11107-2026
Decided on: 27.04.2026
Uploaded on: 27.04.2026
Pawan Kumar ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana ......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner (s).
Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Prikshit Singla, Advocate for the complainant.
*****
Sumeet Goel (Oral):
1. Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.372 dated 14.11.2025
registered for offences punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of
BNS 2023 at Police Station City Tohana, District Fatehabad; the petitioner
has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail.
2. On 26.02.2026, the following order was passed:
"Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.372 dated 14.11.2025
registered for offences punishable under Sections 316(2) and
318(4) of BNS 2023 at Police Station City Tohana, District
Fatehabad; the petitioner has preferred this petition under
Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
seeking pre-arrest bail.
Counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the
FIR in question arises out a business/commercial transaction;
assuming arguendo, the prosecution version available at this
juncture is taken to be correct, the petitioner was unable to pay
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-11107-2026 Page |2
the money/gold ornaments due from him; the petitioner is
suffering from a medical condition and remained hospitalized
from 29.06.2025 to 28.07.2025, the petitioner is a man with clean
antecedents & is willing to join investigation and cooperate
therein as per law.
Notice of motion.
On the strength of advance notice; Ms. Mahima Yashpal
Singla, Senior DAG, Haryana has entered appearance on behalf
of the respondent-State of Haryana.
At this stage; Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Advocate has caused
appearance on behalf of the FIR-complainant namely Jai
Bhagwan and other victims namely Surender Kumar, Sadanand,
Varinder Goyal, Jogesh, Ankit, Sanjay and Suresh.
Mr. Daljeet Singh Randhawa, Advocate has caused
appearance on behalf of victims namely Amit Kumar and Nitin
Kumar.
Adjourned to 09.03.2026.
The petitioner is directed to appear before the
Investigating Officer on 28.02.2026 at 11:00 A.M. in concerned
Police Station and join investigation. In the event of arrest, the
petitioner shall be released on interim bail subject to his
furnishing personal/surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of the
Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. As and when further
called by Investigating Officer, the petitioner shall join the
investigation. He shall abide by the condition(s) enumerated
under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023."
3. Learned State counsel (on instructions from ASI Sohan) has
submitted that the petitioner has joined investigation but his custodial
interrogation is required for effecting the recovery of gold articles/money
in question.
3.1. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed
the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that allegations
raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and in case the petitioner
is extended the concession of anticipatory bail, there is all the
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-11107-2026 Page |3
likelihood that he may interfere with the investigation as also intimidate the
witnesses and also the FIR-complainant.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties and upon
perusal of the record; especially keeping in view the factum of the
petitioner having joined investigation & cooperated therein and his
custodial interrogation being sought for recovery of gold articles/money in
question; this Court is inclined to confirm the order dated 26.02.2026.
4.1. Ergo, the petition in hand is allowed and the order dated
26.02.2026 is made absolute.
5. This order should not be treated as "blanket" order. It will not
be read granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be
confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any
other incident that involves commission of an offence.
6. Liberty is reserved in favour of State/complainant to move for
cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioner violates any condition
stipulated under Section 482(2) of BNSS or upon showing any other
sufficient cause.
7. Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not
be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL)
27.04.2026 JUDGE
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
