CRM-M-18478-2025 -1- 102+216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-32314-2025 & CRM-32315-2025 in/and CRM-M-18478-2025 Date of Decision:20.08.2025 Ravinder …Petitioner vs. State of Haryana and others …Respondents Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Rajesh Goyal, Advocate, for the complainant. Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate, for the victim. *** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) CRM-32314-2025 1. The present application has been moved by the applicant/ respondents No.2 and 3 to implead the victims namely, Satish son of Arjun and Pawan son of Umed Singh as respondents No.2 and 3. 2. Notice of the application to the non-applicant/petitioner. 3. Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of non- applicant-petitioner and he has no objection in case, Satish son of Arjun and Pawan son of Umed Singh be impleaded as respondents No.2 and 3. 4. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the victims are ordered to be impleaded as respondents No.2 and 3 in the memo of parties. The amended memo of parties is taken on record. HEMLATA 2025.08.22 04:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18478-2025 -2- CRM-32315-2025 1. Application is allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. Annexures R-2/1 to R-2/3 are taken on record. CRM-M-18478-2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of B.N.S.S with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail to him in case FIR No.83, dated 05.02.2025, under Sections 420, 406 of IPC, registered at Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat. 2. While granting the concession of interim anticipatory bail by this Court on 03.04.2025, this Court had noticed the following contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature and the petitioner has been falsely involved in the present case. He next submits that the complainant is a financer, who has filed 10 cases of cheque dishonour and suits for recovery in Sub Division Samalkha. Even the petitioner had filed a civil suit for declaration to the effect that an agreement to sell dated 23.03.2023 alleged to have been exe- cuted by the petitioner in favour of the complainant, is illegal, null and void, and based on misrepresentation committed by the com- plainant. Learned counsel further contends that the present case is based on documentary evidence and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be required.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the submissions and further submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and his custo- dial interrogation may not be required. HEMLATA 2025.08.22 04:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18478-2025 -3- 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel also submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is no longer required for further investigation. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 have vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. In view of the above statement made by learned State counsel, the present petition is allowed and the interim order dated 03.04.2025 is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join the investigation, as and when called by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as specified under Section 482 (2) of B.N.S.S. 7. Pending application(s) stand(s) also disposed of. (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 20.08.2025 JUDGE hemlata Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HEMLATA 2025.08.22 04:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document