IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 104 CRM-M-22926-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.05.2025. Parveen ...Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent. *** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR ....... Present: Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. *** SUKHVINDER KAUR , J. (Oral) This application for interim bail from 03.05.2025 to 14.05.2025 has been filed on the ground that marriage of the petitioner is to be solemnized on 07.05.2025 with Sangeeta daughter of Ramphal, resident of village Girawar, District Rohtak. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the marriage of the petitioner was already fixed prior to registration of the present FIR against him. The presence of the petitioner prior and after the marriage is required to perform some rituals and ceremonies and as such, he is in need of concession of interim bail. Learned State counsel has not disputed the fact regarding factum of marriage of the petitioner but has opposed the interim bail and alleged that he is involved in a serious case and if granted interim bail may misuse the concession of bail and may also threaten/influence the prosecution witnesses. I have learned counsel for the parties. KOMAL 2025.05.02 17:55 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRM-M-22926-2025 (O&M) -2- Earlier the petitioner filed the application for interim bail from 03.05.2025 to 14.05.2025 before the learned trial Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.04.2025 while holding that the allegations qua him are serious and grave in nature. It was also observed that he had not moved any application seeking the regular bail and it appeared that in the garb of seeking interim bail, he was trying to hoodwink the judicial process. The petitioner has been booked for the offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 190, 109, 333, 324(4), 324(5) of BNS and 25(1-B)- 54-59 of the Arms Act. Subsequently offence under Section 103(1) of BNS was added as injured Om Parkash had died. Thus, there are serious and a grave allegations against the petitioner. The apprehension regarding absconding of the accused if granted concession of interim bail and influencing the prosecution witnesses cannot be said to be unfounded. Moreover, this is not the case that for meeting some emergent situation which is beyond the control of the petitioner, for which the interim bail is required. Even if some date of marriage had been fixed, it could have been changed easily, keeping in view the fact that the accused is in custody. So, keeping the above in view, without commenting on merits of the case, this application for interim bail is dismissed. (SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE 02.05.2025. Komal Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/ No Whether reportable? : Yes/ No KOMAL 2025.05.02 17:55 I attest to the accuracy of this document