Sandeep Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Another
2026 Latest Caselaw 3945 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sandeep Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Another on 29 April, 2026

                      CRM-M-3686-2026                          -1-


                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                              AT CHANDIGARH
                      260
                                                                                      CRM-M-3686-2026
                                                                                  Decided on : 29.04.2026

                      Sandeep Kumar                                                          . . . Petitioner(s)
                                                              Versus
                      State of Haryana and another                                       . . . Respondent(s)

                      CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

                      PRESENT: Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Advocate
                               for the petitioner(s).

                                    Mr. Amish Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

                                    None for respondent No.2.
                                                         ****

                      SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS,

2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the

petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First

Information Report, as detailed here-under:-

Name & age of FIR Date Section(s) Police District Petitioner (s) No. Station Sandeep Kumar, 201 07.05.2024 406, 420 of IPC Mahesh Ambala aged about 27 years Nagar

2. In the present case, on 23.01.2026, following order was passed

by this Court:-

"2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that, as per the allegations, dispute pertains to an amount of Rs.2,70,000/-, in respect of which the complainant allegedly claims to have been duped by the petitioner for securing a work visa for Singapore, with the air tickets and visa documents found to be fraudulent.

3. Counsel further contends that the dispute involves a relatively small amount and has, in fact, been amicably resolved between JAWALA RAM the petitioner and the complainant/respondent No. 2 - Prem Wahi.

Petitioner is ready to repay the amount, as settled through an oral compromise with respondent No.2.

4. Notice of motion.

5. On advance notice, Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana, puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent - State, and Mr. Nitin Sansanwal, Advocate, puts an appearance on behalf of respondent No.2/complainant.

6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over Demand Draft No.211072 dated 19.01.2026, drawn on Canara Bank, to the counsel for respondent No.2/complainant.

A photocopy of the said demand draft has been taken on record, and Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place in the file. Thus, learned counsel prays for the grant of the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present case.

7. Let the parties appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, for amicable settlement of the dispute on 18.02.2026.

8. List again on 29.04.2026, awaiting report.

9. Meanwhile, the 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 abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.).

10. Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over his passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport.

It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of the Court."

3. Continuing his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner

contends that on recommending the dispute to the Mediation and

Conciliation Centre of this Court, parties to the lis have settled their dispute

by way of amicable settlement and same has also been reduced into writing

by way of 'Settlement Agreement' dated 24.04.2026 (in Mediation Case

No.259 of 2026) before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court.

Original Settlement Agreement dated 24.04.2026 is already

available on the case file.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that petitioner

has not joined investigation and thus, it is a violation of the order dated

23.01.2026, passed by this Court.

Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner

undertakes to comply with the direction dated 23.01.2026 of this Court.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the

relevant material available on record, including the 'Settlement Agreement'

dated 24.04.2026, more particularly, the conditions mentioned in Clause 5

thereof, this Court finds substance in the submissions addressed by learned

counsel for the petitioner.

Accordingly, ad-interim bail order dated 23.01.2026, passed by

this Court is hereby made absolute.

However, petitioner is directed to join investigation within a

period of two weeks from today, in terms of order dated 23.01.2026.

Besides, it is also made clear that in future petitioner shall

continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by

all the terms and conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.

6. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of, accordingly.

7. However, present order would be subject to the terms &

conditions of the 'Settlement Agreement' dated 24.04.2026, executed before

the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, and also subject to the

petitioner submitting his passport before the Investigating Agency or to

Court concerned, if he possesses, within a period of two weeks from today.

Otherwise, he would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not

possess any passport.

It is clarified that in case, aforesaid condition is not complied

with, this order would be considered as non est automatically.

Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE April 29, 2026 J.Ram

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No