103 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-2242-2026 DECIDED ON: 15.07.2026 RAHUL .....APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH. Present: Mr. Ravi Kumar Girdhwal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sunny Namdev, AAG, Haryana. SANJAY VASHISTH , J (ORAL) 1. Present appeal has been moved by the appellant, challenging the order dated 25.06.2026 passed by learned Vacation Judge-cum- Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, whereby application for anticipatory bail filed by the appellant was dismissed, in case, FIR No.100 dated 27.05.2026 under sections 115(2), 127(2), 140(3), 351(3) read with section 3(5) of BNS and sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)Va of SC/ST Act, registered at Police Station Sector 6, Bahadurgarh. 2. Without addressing the merits of the case in detail, learned counsel for the appellant submits that, subsequent to the registration of FIR, parties have amicably resolved their dispute and entered into a compromise. It is contended that, in view of the said settlement, custodial interrogation of the appellant is no longer necessary and, rather, may adversely affect the cordial relations now restored between the parties. LAVISHA 2026.07.15 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRA-S-2242-2026 -2- Learned counsel further submits that appellant is ready and willing to join the investigation and extend full cooperation to the Investigating Agency, provided he is protected from arrest by this Court. Thus, learned counsel prays for the grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant in the present case. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that there are three accused in the present case and one of the injured has sustained a grievous injury. 4. On being asked by this Court, learned State counsel fairly submits that, till date, none of the injuries has been declared to be dangerous to life. He further submits that, apart from the offences alleged under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Investigating Agency seeks custodial interrogation of the appellant. 5. Mr. Nitesh Yadav, Advocate, puts in appearance on behalf of the complainant/respondent No.2, and files his power of attorney in Court today, which is taken on record. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/respondent No.2 submits that statement made by learned counsel for the appellant before this Court regarding the compromise having been effected between the parties, is correct. He further submits that complainant/respondent No.2 has no objection, if the concession of anticipatory bail is granted to the appellant in the present case. LAVISHA 2026.07.15 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRA-S-2242-2026 -3- 7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the record available before it. 8. Since it is an admitted position that parties have amicably settled their dispute and factum of compromise has also been acknowledged by learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present petition pending any further. 9. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present petition, with the direction to the appellant to join the investigation within two weeks from today or as and when called by the investigating officer, and in the eventuality of the arrest, appellant would be released on anticipatory bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The appellant shall also be abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.). 10. Besides, it is directed that appellant 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, appellant would seek prior permission of the Court. 11. However, it is clarified that this order shall be deemed inoperative, in case, appellant fails to join and cooperate with the investigation, in terms of the directions mentioned in the present order. LAVISHA 2026.07.15 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRA-S-2242-2026 -4- 12. With the directions recorded here above, present appeal stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) 15.07.2026 JUDGE Lavisha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No LAVISHA 2026.07.15 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh