Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/30775/2026 of SAMARJEET DAS Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 2 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (103) CRM-M-30775-2026 (O&M) Decided on: 02.09.2026 Uploaded on: 02.09.2026 Samarjeet Das ……Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana ……Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Amit Choudhary,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(103)
CRM-M-30775-2026 (O&M)
Decided on: 02.09.2026
Uploaded on: 02.09.2026
Samarjeet Das
……Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana
……Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:
Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner (s).
Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG, Haryana.
Ms. Anjali Chaudhary, Advocate for
Mr. Ankur Jain, Advocate for the complainant.
*****
Sumeet Goel (Oral):
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.70, dated 27.04.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2) & 318(4) of BNS, 2023, at Police Station Sector 17, District Faridabad, Haryana, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail.
2. On 26.05.2026, the following order was passed:
P a g e | 2
“Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.70, dated 27.04.2026, under Sections 316(2) & 318(4) of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Sector 17, District Faridabad, Haryana. Further prayer has been made for staying the arrest of the petitioner during the pendency of the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely prosecuted in the present FIR. He has submitted that the petitioner was to supply the goods to the complainant as a business transaction and for that, the payment was made by the complainant is not being denied by him. He has submitted that for dishonor of the cheque, the proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is already pending on behalf of the complainant. He has submitted that in these circumstances, the FIR in itself is not maintainable. He has submitted that de hors the allegations made, the petitioner is ready to settle the dispute amicably with the complainant and thus, he prays that the matter may kindly be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement.
Notice of motion.
On asking of the Court, Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent- State.
At this state, Mr. Kamal Chaudhary, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the complainant.
Learned counsel for both the sides are ad idem that there are chances of an amicable settlement between the parties and thus, the matter be referred to the Mediation & Conciliation Centre, District Courts at Faridabad for exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement.
In the interest of justice, the matter is referred to the Mediation & Conciliation Centre, District Courts at Faridabad. Parties are directed to appear before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre, District Courts at Faridabad on 10.06.2026 at 10:00 A.M. to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement.
P a g e | 3
To await the report of the Mediator, adjourned to 13.07.2026.
In the meantime, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner till the next date of hearing.”
3. The report received from the District Mediation & Conciliation Centre, Faridabad reflects that the parties have amicably settled the matter and terms of settlement have been reduced into writing vide settlement deed dated 15.06.2026.
4. Keeping in view the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the factum of the matter having been settled between the rival private parties and terms thereof having been reduced into writing vide settlement deed dated 15.06.2026; this Court deems it appropriate to afford the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
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. Needless to say that the parties shall be bound by the terms/conditions as stipulated in the settlement deed dated 15.06.2026 & the either party(s) shall be at liberty to approach this Court for seeking modification/variation/recalling of this order on showing sufficient cause.
Liberty is also reserved in favour of State/complainant to move for cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioner violates any
P a g e | 4
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) 02.09.2026
JUDGE Naveen Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No