IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (212) CRM-M-7244-2026 Decided on: 08.07.2026 Uploaded on: 08.07.2026 Preeti ……Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ……Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Gaurav Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Priyanka Sadar Thakur, Senior DAG, Haryana. ***** Sumeet Goel (Oral): 1. Apprehending her arrest in FIR No.556 dated 02.07.2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 191(3), 190, 126(2), 221, 121(1), 132, 324(4), 351 (2,3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and 26, 54 & 59 of Arms Act, at Police Station Sector 58, Faridabad, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking pre-arrest bail. 2. On 09.02.2026, the following order was passed: “The instant petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.556 dated 02.07.2024, registered under Sections 191(3), 190, 126(2), 221, 121(1), 132, 324(4), 351(2, 3) of BNS and Sections 26-54-59 of Arms Act, at Police Station Sector 58, Faridabad. Brief facts of the case are that upon receipt of secret information by the complainant, who was on patrolling duty, that husband of petitioner is a man of criminal nature, and possesses illegal weapons and is in habit of intimidating locality residents, the complainant/police official went to petitioner’s house, and upon asking of her husband’s whereabouts, she started breaking TARSEM CHAUDHARY 2026.07.08 17:15 I am approving this document CRM-M-7244-2026 P a g e | 2 household items and when he tried to leave, he was attacked by petitioner along with her husband, who was carrying an iron rod, and a young boy, who damaged and wrecked his vehicle. Thereafter, he was pulled out of car and given beatings by them. Further when he disclosed his identity to be a police official, the husband of petitioner used filthy and abusive words against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that she is a household lady with clean antecedents, that no DDR or prior information was received at the police station before raiding her house, and that the complainant was not in uniform but in civil dress, with no specific allegations attributed to the petitioner. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as she is ready and willing to join the investigation. Notice of motion. Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana, in pursuance of advance notice, appears on behalf of respondent-State and upon instructions from ASI Surender Kumar, submitted that the 焁 petitioner along with other co accused caused injuries to the police official and prayed for dismissal of the bail petition. On a specific query raised by this Court as to whether the complainant had given any information to the police station regarding the secret information received by him, learned State counsel sought time to file a status report. Heard. Keeping in view the role attributed to the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner is a household lady with clear antecedents, the petitioner is directed to join investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. In the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on interim bail on furnishing personal bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer till the next date of hearing subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.). Adjourned to 21.04.2026. Accordingly, State is directed to file reply/status report, mentioning the following particulars in a tabulated form: • Role attributed to the petitioner. • Evidence collected regarding complicity of the petitioner. • Criminal antecedents of the petitioner.” 3. Learned State counsel (on instructions) has submitted that the petitioner has joined investigation and she is not required for custodial interrogation. 4. Keeping in view the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and that she is not required for custodial interrogation, the petition is allowed and the order dated 09.02.2026 granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner is TARSEM CHAUDHARY 2026.07.08 17:15 I am approving this document CRM-M-7244-2026 P a g e | 3 hereby made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS. 5. This order should not be treated as “blanket” order. It will not be read granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence. 6. Liberty is reserved in favour of State/complainant to move for cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioner violates any condition stipulated under Section 482(2) of BNSS or upon showing any other sufficient cause. 7. Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. 8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) 08.07.2026 JUDGE Tarsem Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No TARSEM CHAUDHARY 2026.07.08 17:15 I am approving this document