CRM-M-73517- IN THE H (104) PARVEEN KUM STATE OF HAR
CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. H Mr. G MANISHA BATR 1. Throu Bharatiya Nagarik seeks anticipatory Sections 318(4), Nyaya Sanhita at P 2. Vide the petitioner was 3. Powe argued by learned -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH KUMAR Versus
HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS r. Ashish Naik, Advocate for the pe Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana Mr. Gaurav Chhonkar, Advocate for t ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
Through the instant petition filed agarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for patory bail in case FIR No.351 dated 8(4), 329(3), 329(4), 336(3), 338, 3 ita at Police Station Kalayat, District K Vide orders dated 04.02.2026 and 23 r was released on interim bail and was Power of attorney on behalf of the co arned counsel for the complainant tha JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-73517-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 06.03.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA
the petitioner te for the complainant filed under Section 482 of the (for short ‘BNSS’), the petitioner dated 01.11.2025 registered under 338, 340 and 351(2) of Bharatiya strict Kaithal. nd 23.02.2026 passed by this Court, nd was directed to join investigation. the complainant has been filed. It is ant that there are serious and specific M) 2026 oner
the ioner nder atiya ourt, It is cific AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.07 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-73517- allegations against of the complainan purpose of execu complainant/his w entitle him to be e is must. It is, there 4. Learn the investigation cooperated in the agreement in que therefore, argued t 5. Learn interrogation is n which is already i to be effected fro litigation is alread fact, of civil natu allowed. 6. This C for the parties at co 7. As 24.02.2026. No r -2025 (O&M) 2 against the petitioner who forged the t lainant on an agreement to sell and execution and registration of sale d t/his wife in his favour. The gravit to be extended benefit of pre-arrest ba s, therefore, argued that the petition do Learned State counsel has submitted ation on 24.02.2026. However, it in the investigation since the details in question was forged, have not be gued that the petition does not deserve Learned counsel for the petitioner n is not required. The cased is bas eady in the possession of the Investig ed from him. There is unusual delay already pending. Moreover, the disp il nature. It is, therefore, stressed th This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. As discussed above, the petitioner No recovery is to be affected from h d the thumb impressions of the wife ll and tried to use the same for the sale deed qua the property of the gravity of the allegations does not rest bail. His custodial interrogation tion does not deserve to be allowed. mitted that the petitioner has joined er, it is submitted that he has not details of the manner in which the not been disclosed by him. It is, eserve to be allowed. ioner has argued that his custodial is based on documentary evidence vestigating Agency. No recovery is delay in the lodging of FIR. Civil he dispute between the parties is in sed that the petition deserves to be ubmissions made by learned counsel itioner has joined investigation on from him. However, with regard to wife r the f the s not tion ined not the It is, odial ence ry is Civil is in to be unsel n on rd to AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.07 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-73517- the contention tha may be stated that as an instance of since, an accused incriminating state the interim protect make oneself avai queries and not to the allegations, th such, without com peculiar to this ca Accordingly, the 23.02.2026 grantin compliance of con 8. Since if any, is rendered 06.03.2026 Amit Sharma


-2025 (O&M) 3 on that the petitioner has not cooper ed that the behavior attributed to the p ce of non-cooperation, justifying deni ccused, while joining investigation, g statement under the threat that the protection granted to him. The purpos lf available to the Investigating Agenc not to divulge self-incriminating info ns, the pre trial incarceration of the ut commenting on the merits of the c this case, the petitioner makes a case , the petition is allowed and the granting interim bail to the petitioner of conditions laid down in Section 482 Since the main petition has been disp dered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes 
 

cooperated with the investigation, it the petitioner cannot be considered g denial for grant of pre arrest bail, tion, is not expected to make self at the State may seek withdrawal of purpose of joining investigation is to Agency and to respondent to lawful g information. Given the nature of of the petitioner is not required. As f the case and in the circumstances a case for release on pre arrest bail. the orders dated 04.02.2026 and itioner are made absolute, subject to on 482(2) of BNSS. en disposed of, pending application, (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
n, it ered bail, self al of is to wful re of . As nces bail. and ct to tion, AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.07 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.