[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Randhir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 28 April, 2026
On 17.03.2026,, this Court had passed the following order:
order:-
"Petitioner,
Petitioner, an accused in case FIR No.49 dated
22.02.2023 registered against him, ffor commission of
offences punishable u/s 120-B,
B, 182, 195, 211, 465, 466, 469,
471, 506 IPC at P.S. Munak, District Karnal, has prayed for
grant of pre-arrest bail.
While mentioning the factual backdrop of the case,
learned counsel for the petitioner conte
contends that complainant
Amarjit Kaur was 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
sband and other relatives for
commission of offences punishable u/s 498498-A, 323, 379-B,
427, 34 IPC. On the same day, her husband got registered an
PARVEEN KUMAR
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 present petitioner. 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, though
petitioner is not in any which way involved in the incident
but being a law-abiding citizen, he is 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
petitioner, a medician, has misused his position and 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 petitioner and without adverting to the merits of the
case, petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and
when required to do so by the Investigating Agency. In the
event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on ad-
interim bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the
satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner 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."
3. Learned counsel submits that in pursuance of the afore-
mentioned order, the petitioner has not only joined investigation but also
fully cooperated with the investigating agency. He further submits that in
case the investigating agency requires the petitioner to appear, he shall
make himself available without demur.
4. Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of
affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Assandh, which is taken
on record. However, he on instructions from ASI Sandeep affirms the
factum of joining the investigation by the petitioner and cooperating with
the investigating agency. He also submits that at this stage, the petitioner
is 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 petitioner is
allowed and the order dated 17.03.2026 granting interim bail to him, 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 petitioner fails 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 him.
