[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
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
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.
