CRM-M-33705-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 216 CRM-M-33705-2025 Decided on: 11.08.2025 ABHINAV RANA …...Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. …...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Jaskaran Singh, Advocate for complainant/respondent No.2. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. 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 & age of Petitioner (s) FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station District Abhinav Rana, aged about 33 years 329 10.08.2024 419, 420 of the IPC Civil Lines Karnal 2. On 02.07.2025, following order was passed :- “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 & age of Petitioner (s) FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station District Abhinav Rana, aged about 33 years 329 10.08.2024 419, 420 of the IPC Civil Lines Karnal PRASHANT KAPOOR 2025.08.12 20:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CRM-M-33705-2025 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that in the present case, seller of the property namely Asha Wadhera has already been granted concession of interim anticipatory bail by this Court, vide order dated 29.05.2025, passed in CRM-M-30994-2025 (Annexure P-10). Said petition is now posted for its hearing for 11.08.2025. 3. Contentions recorded in the said order dated 29.05.2025, passed in CRM-M-30994-2025, which would be relevant for considering the plea of anticipatory bail in the present petition, are reproduced here under:- “2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that actually there is some misconception to the complainant- respondent No.2 or he is concocting the version to involve the petitioner in the present criminal case. In fact, there is dispute regarding identity of the property. Further submits that the petitioner had sold the property in favour of Smt. Bharpai Devi, Smt. Kavita Devi and Shri Abhinav Rana, for sale consideration of Rs.24,00,000/-, vide sale deed dated 18.04.2022 (Annexure P-3), wherein Property ID No. 147C289U170 has been recorded. The petitioner also handed over possession of the property, i.e. House No. 8C/1053, Arjun Nagar, Karnal, which has been built up over an area of 100 Sq. Yards, whereas complainant/respondent No. 2 is raising dispute regarding property bearing No. 19/1053, Dyal Singh Colony, Arjun Nagar, Karnal. Also points out that no specific khasra numbers have been allotted to the plot, which is allegedly possessed/owned by complainant- respondent No. 2 – Krishan Kumar. Additionally, it is also argued that only on the basis of levelling of bald allegation by the complainant, and without conducting any inquiry/investigation, present FIR has been registered against the petitioner. Moreover, the whole dispute is to be decided on the basis of documentary evidence and custodial interrogation would not be required for any fruitful purpose. 3 XXXXXXXXXXX 4 XXXXXXXXXX 5 XXXXXXXXXX 6. Be that as it may. Petitioner has sold the property vide registered sale deed dated 18.04.2025 (Annexure P-3), wherein specific Property ID No. 147C289U170 has been mentioned, and possession has also been handed over to the purchasers. The allegations levelled by the complainant- respondent No. 2 requires thorough investigation, for which PRASHANT KAPOOR 2025.08.12 20:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CRM-M-33705-2025 3 custodial interrogation of the petitioner would not be required.” 4. Notice of motion. 5. On advance notice, Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana, puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent – State, and Mr. Jaskaran Singh, Advocate, puts in appearance on behalf of the complainant, and files his power of attorney in Court today, which is taken on record. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the plea of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present case. 6. Adjourned to 11.08.2025. To be heard along with CRM-M-30994-2025. 7. In the meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating Agency. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on ad-interim 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.). 8. 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.” 3. Continuing his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in compliance of the order dated 02.07.2025, passed by this Court, petitioner has joined the investigation, and has fully co-operated. Therefore, he prays for confirmation of the said interim anticipatory bail order. 4. Learned State counsel on instructions from I.O. confirms the said averment made by counsel for the petitioner of joining the investigation on 03.07.2025 by the petitioner, and submits that as of now, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2025.08.12 20:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CRM-M-33705-2025 4 6. Since, petitioner has already joined the investigation and custodial interrogation is no more required; ad-interim bail order dated 02.07.2025, passed by this Court is hereby made absolute. Accordingly, present petition is allowed. However, petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the terms and conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. 7. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 11.08.2025 Chiranjeev Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO PRASHANT KAPOOR 2025.08.12 20:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement