CRM-M-36886-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 102 CRM-M-36886-2025 Date of decision: 22.07.2025 RITESH @ KALI AND ANOTHER ...Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Amit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. AG, Haryana. **** SANDEEP MOUDGIL , J.(ORAL) 1. Prayer This petition has been filed under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.224 dated 15.06.2025, under Sections 110, 115, 190, 191(3) of BNS (corresponding Sections 308, 323, 148 & 149 of IPC), registered at Police Station Gannaur, District Sonipat, Haryana. 2. Contentions On behalf of the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case with the allegations NISHA 2025.07.23 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36886-2025 -2- that on 14.06.2025, the family of the complainant had quarrel with the family of the present petitioner regarding drain water. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner and co-accused were armed with lathi/danda and farsa and caused fatal injuries to the husband of the complainant, her father- in-law, her son and her brother-in-law. However, as per version of the FIR, present petitioner was carrying lathi/danda and not the Farsa which was the alleged weapon allegedly used to cause only injury received by injured Amit meaning thereby no injury is caused by present petitioner as they were carrying lathi/danda and no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner or any other allegation has come forth in the FIR regarding the role of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating officer. Notice of motion. On behalf of the State Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. AG, Haryana appearing on advance notice on instructions from Investigating officer vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of concession of anticipatory bail stating that the petitioner has actively participated in the incident in question and the husband of the complainant had received serious injuries on his person and and seeks custodial interrogation of the present petitioner. 3. Analysis Be that as it may, after given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions as made, by the counsel for both the parties it is found that no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner or levelled alleged against NISHA 2025.07.23 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36886-2025 -3- the petitioner and State has failed to make out the case against the petitioner as to why his custodial interrogation is required. Hence, this Court finds no reason to deny the petitioner the concession of anticipatory bail, wherein the petitioner has bona fide intentions and is willing to join the investigation and cooperate for furtherance of the same so that the final report can be submitted by the Investigating Agency within the stipulated time period. 4. Relief Hence, in view of the admitted set of circumstances before this Court, the petitioner is hereby directed to be released on anticipatory bail subject to him joining investigation and reporting to the Investigating Officer concerned within a period of one week from today, on furnishing of personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS of which are reproduced below :- ‘When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub- section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including- (i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; (iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section.’ However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner does not comply with the aforesaid direction of joining the investigation within one NISHA 2025.07.23 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36886-2025 -4- week, the order passed by this Court today shall automatically stand cancelled. The petition in the aforesaid terms stand allowed. (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) JUDGE 22.07.2025 Nisha Yadav Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No NISHA 2025.07.23 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document