[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kailash vs State Of Haryana on 20 March, 2026
CRM-M-52171-2025 (O&M) 1
101-2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-52171-2025 (O&M)
DECIDED ON: 20.03.2026
KAILASH .....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana, along with
ASI Sombir Singh.
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 hereunder:-
Name of FIR Date Section(s) Police District
Petitioner (s) No. Station
Kailash, 15 15.01.2025 34, 380, 406 and Badhra Charkhi
aged about 420 of IPC Dadri
31 years
2. After hearing the submissions addressed by counsel for the
petitioner, on 16.09.2025, following order was passed:-
"2. The dispute has arisen out of a partnership
business of M/s Neelam Stone Crusher, Pichopa
Kalan, being run by five partners. It is an undisputed
fact that all the partners decided to dismantle the
crusher, and vide writing dated 30.12.2023, it was
agreed that the petitioner - Kailash, along with his
father - Satbir, would purchase all the tools and
CRM-M-52171-2025 (O&M) 2
machinery of M/s Neelam Stone Crusher. The
allegation levelled by the complainant/partner is that
the petitioner took away the tools and machinery but
failed to make the payment.
Learned counsel submits that the dispute is
purely monetary in nature and, without there being
any element of criminality, the facts have been twisted
to give it a criminal colour, resulting in registration of
the present case.
3. Learned counsel further refers to the order
dated 06.05.2025, passed in CRM-M-16942-2025,
titled as, "Satbir v. State of Haryana" (Annexure P-4),
whereby co-accused Satbir (father of the petitioner)
has already been granted interim anticipatory bail by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court.
While referring to the aforesaid order, learned
counsel for the petitioner points out that the factum of
payment of Rs.1,43,00,000/- was duly noticed by the
Coordinate Bench. It is further submitted that an
amount of Rs.11,00,000/- has admittedly been paid
and the balance is to be cleared by the petitioner and
his father (co-accused), whereas, according to the
complainant, only Rs.4,00,000/- has been received.
He further submits that the petitioner is ready and
willing to join investigation, if granted protection
from arrest. Accordingly, prayer is made for grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. Notice of motion.
5. On advance notice, learned State counsel puts
in appearance on behalf of the respondent - State, and
seeks some time to respond to the submissions
addressed by learned counsel opposite, after seeking
instructions. And, in case of necessity, to file status
report.
6. At this stage, Mr. V.P. Sangwan, Advocate, puts
in appearance on behalf of the complainant and files
his memo of appearance. He undertakes to file his
vakalatnama in the registry in due course of time.
7. Adjourned to 04.11.2025.
8. Till the next date of hearing, the arrest of the
petitioners shall remain stayed. However, the aspect
regarding their joining of investigation shall be
considered after perusal of the status report/reply to be
filed by the respondent/State.
9. On the next date of hearing, both learned
counsel for the parties, i.e., petitioner and
complainant, shall file their respective affidavits
containing therein their calculations qua the disputed
amount, along with supporting material.
10. To be heard along with CRM-M-16942-2025."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is
the son of Satbir, who has already been granted the concession of
anticipatory bail by this Court, vide order of even date passed in CRM-
M-16942-2025.
Further submits that, petitioner is ready to join the
investigation and fully cooperate, if protected from arrest by this Court.
Thus, counsel prays for grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner in the present case.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently
opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and
submits that, considering the gravity of the offence, petitioner is not
entitled to such concession. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the
present petition.
5. This Court has heard the submissions addressed by counsel
for the parties and has also gone through the record available before it,
and deems it appropriate to dispose of the present petition, by directing
the petitioner to join the investigation within two weeks from today, or as
and when called by the investigating agency, and in the eventuality of the
arrest, petitioner would be released on anticipatory 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.).
6. 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.
7. With the directions issued here above, present petition stands
disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
20.03.2026 JUDGE
Lavisha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
