IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.14650 of 2026 Hurera ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent 1. The date when the judgment is reserved 28.07.2026 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 30.07.2026 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 30.07.2026 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced Full 5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof Not applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Talim Hussain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. Mr. Sunil Panwar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Tejaswini, Advocate, for the complainant. *** MANISHA BATRA , J. 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short MANJU 2026.07.30 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.14650 of 2026 -2- “BNSS”) seeking anticipatory bail in the FIR mentioned below:- FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 0122 15.10.2025 PS Akera, District Nuh 191(3), 190, 115(2), 126, 351(3), 109(1) and 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNS”) 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant Shokin alleging therein that on 14.10.2025, he had gone to his fields to harvest the paddy crop. At about 8:30 AM, his sister Anjila was bringing breakfast for him. While on the way, the present petitioner and co-accused Fazal forcibly pulled her inside a paddy field and tried to outrage her modesty. She somehow got herself released and came to the complainant and disclosed about the entire incident to him. The complainant went to the petitioner and co-accused Fazal for asking the reason for harassing his sister. Both of them assaulted him, hurled abuses and extended threat to kill him if he disclosed about the incident to anyone. The complainant alleged that he had informed his family members who had reached there and when they were leaving for the purpose of reporting the matter to the police, they were intercepted by accused Irsad, Robin, Amin, Razaak, Abbas, Rashid, Qadir and Momin, all of whom opened an assault upon the complainant and his family members and caused injuries to them. They were rescued by Rasheed, Rizwan and Zahul. The assailants had then fled away while extending threats to kill them. The MANJU 2026.07.30 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.14650 of 2026 -3- injured were rushed to the hospital and were medically examined. 3. Initially, a case under Sections 115, 126, 190, 191(3) and 351(3) of BNS was registered. Investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner along with co-accused Fazal and Huzaifa was joined into investigation on 16.10.2025 and was released on police bail. Subsequently, offence under Section 109(1) of BNS was added. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail and vide order dated 15.01.2026, the said application was allowed. Then, offence under Section 103(1) of BNS was added on account of death of injured Attu. An application was moved for issuance of re-arrest warrants of the petitioner and the learned Magistrate granted permission for his arrest. The petitioner again moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh vide order dated 10.03.2026. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegations of assaulting the deceased victim and other injured have not been levelled against him but as against the co-accused. He had been booked for commission of offences punishable under Sections 115, 126, 351(3), 190 and 191(3) of BNS and had been extended benefit of bail at that time. The members of the complainant party were aggressors in this case and had inflicted four injuries upon the person of accused Abbas. Matter was also reported to the police but no case was registered against the members of complainant party. On account of MANJU 2026.07.30 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.14650 of 2026 -4- addition of offences, he is sought to be arrested though neither his custodial interrogation is required nor any recovery is to be effected from him. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the petition for grant of pre arrest bail is not maintainable since the petitioner had been previously extended benefit of bail and thereafter is deemed to be in constructive custody of the Court. It is further argued that, in any case, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is to surrender before the learned trial Court and seek regular bail in view of the addition of a graver offence, rather than invoking the jurisdiction of this Court for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 7. The petitioner was extended benefit of police bail and then of anticipatory bail. Now after addition of offence punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS, he is again making prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. In the considered opinion of this Court, the prayer was made by the petitioner cannot be allowed in view of the fact that the petition cannot be stated to be maintainable. The well settled proposition of law is that once an accused is released on bail, he is deemed to be in constructive custody of law and if the law requires him to come back to custody for some specified reason, an application for anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest would not lie since there cannot be any apprehension of arrest by a person already in MANJU 2026.07.30 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.14650 of 2026 -5- constructive custody of law. In this context, reliance can be placed upon the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manish Jain vs. Haryana State Pollution Control Board, 2022 (1) SCC (Cri) 676. Reliance can also be placed upon Pradeep Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and another, AIR 2019 SC 3193, wherein it was held that it is open to the investigating agency to approach the concerned Court seeking cancellation of the bail or for obtaining an order for arrest of the accused on addition of a new offence, which shall be considered on its own merit. In Sumit vs. State of U. P. and another, 2026 (1) RCR (Criminal) 765, which is a recent pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has been held that in respect of a circumstance where after the grant of bail to an accused, further cognizable and non- bailable offences are added, the following option are available to an accused:- (i) the accused can surrender and apply for bail for newly added cognizable and non-bailable offences. In the event of refusal of bail, the accused can certainly be arrested; (ii) the investigating agency can seek order from the court under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) of Cr.P.C. respectively for arrest of the accused and his custody. (iii) The Court, in exercise of its power under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) of Cr.P.C. respectively, can direct for taking into custody the accused who has already been granted bail after cancellation of his bail. The Court in exercise of its power under Section 437(5) as well as Section 439(2) respectively can direct the person who MANJU 2026.07.30 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.14650 of 2026 -6- has already been granted bail to be arrested and commit him to custody on addition of graver and non- cognizable offences which may not be necessary always with order of cancelling of earlier bail. (iv) In a case where an accused has already been granted bail, the investigating authority on addition of an offence or offences may not proceed to arrest the accused, but for arresting the accused on such addition of offence or offences it needs to obtain an order to arrest the accused from the Court which had granted the bail. 8. In view of the above discussed proposition of law, it is explicit that an application for grant of anticipatory bail in the peculiar circumstance of the present case cannot be stated to be maintainable. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed. 9. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (MANISHA BATRA) 30.07.2026 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANJU 2026.07.30 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh