Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2026 DAILYLAW 28612 (PNJ)

VIJAY ROHILLA v. STATE OF HARYANA

CRM-M/30894/2026 · 2026-07-10

Surya Partap Singh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 216 CRM-M-30894-2026 Date of decision : 10.07.2026 VIJAY ROHILLA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ...... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate & Ms. Shailja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH . J.(Oral) 1. Status report has been filed by learned State counsel. The same be taken on record. 2. This petition for pre-arrest bail is the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.0202 dated 03.10.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2) & 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Cyber Crime, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. 3. Vide order dated 26.05.2026, the petitioner was admitted to interim anticipatory bail, subject to the condition of furnishing bail/surety VIPIN KUMAR 2026.07.10 21:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30894-2026 2 bonds to the satisfaction of arresting officer. It was also directed that the petitioner shall join the investigation. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance with order dated 26.05.2026, the petitioner has joined the investigation. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the present case custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required, and therefore, the order dated 26.05.2026, whereby the petitioner was accorded the benefit of interim anticipatory bail, be made absolute. 5. The learned State Counsel has submitted that although the petitioner has joined the investigation, but during the course of investigation he did not co-operate, and that he did not disclose the real facts and the details of his role in the commission of offence. 6. The record has been perused carefully. 7. With regard to fact-situation of this case and the above mentioned arguments, following are the relevant factors which are supposed to be taken into consideration:- i) that the petitioner has already joined the investigation; ii) that as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Vinay Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh’ [Criminal Appeal No.939 of 2026, decided on 16.02.2026] the petitioner cannot be forced to assist the prosecuting agency in effecting recovery of incriminating material, which may harm his own interests or may defeat his right of defence; iii) that as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Sanjay Sharma v. State of VIPIN KUMAR 2026.07.10 21:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30894-2026 3 Haryana’ [Criminal Appeal No.767 of 2026, decided on 09.02.2026], collection of evidence is the responsibility of the Investigating Officer, and that an accused cannot be compelled to self-incriminate himself; iv) that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate; v) that the investigation and trial are not likely to be concluded in near future; vi) that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not likely to produce a fruitful result; vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if the order dated 26.05.2026 is made absolute, the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if order dated 26.05.2026 is made absolute, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the investigation/trial. 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions and the fact that the petitioner has already joined the investigation, it is hereby ordered that the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby allowed and the order dated 26.05.2026, whereby the petitioner was accorded the benefit of interim anticipatory bail, is hereby made absolute. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 10.07.2026 vipin Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : No VIPIN KUMAR 2026.07.10 21:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document