CRM-M/36549/2026 of SANJU Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 27 August 2026

1. On 9.7.2026, the following order was passed: ‘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.23 dated 28.01.2026, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 191(3), 190, 115, 117(2), 351(2) [Section 109(1) added later on] of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Dharuhera, District Rewari.

2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Devender @Deepu Thakur’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that on 21.01.2026 at about 10:10 pm, when he was roaming in his street in front of his house, while waiting for his friend, namely ‘Robin’, a large group comprising of 15-16 persons came in three vehicles, i.e. one ‘Ignis’, one ‘Thar’ & one ‘Scorpio’, and that ‘Vikas’, ‘Sanju’, ‘Kartik’, ‘Lucky’, ‘Tushar’, ‘Uttam’, ‘Suraj’, ‘Dinu Jatt’, ‘Goru Chaudhary’, ‘Ajay Jaat’ and 5-6 unknown persons were members of the abovementioned group. It was further stated by the complainant that ‘Gaurav Chaudhary’ alighted from the car and asked him to sit in the car on gun-point, but in the meantime, his (complainant’s) mother saw the incident and raised alarm. According to complainant, thereafter all the abovesaid persons, who were armed with various weapons, such as iron rods and sticks, launched an assault upon him and inflicted multiple injuries on his person.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana appears on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with.

6. Heard.

7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that although the name of the petitioner figures in the FIR, but neither any specific weapon has been assigned to him, nor the detail of injury inflicted by the petitioner on the person of complainant has been mentioned, neither in FIR nor subsequent thereto. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that otherwise also, the parties have reached to a compromise and as per compromise, the complainant is not interested in pursuing the present case.

8. In addition to above, it has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant has already been discharged from the hospital, and that the benefit of anticipatory bail has been accorded to similarly placed co-accused.

9. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, in the present case serious/grievous injuries, which have been declared dangerous to life, were inflicted by a group, of which the petitioner was a member. As per learned State Counsel, in view of gravity of offence, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail.

10. The record has been perused carefully.

11. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision:-

i. that the complainant has already been discharged from the hospital;

ii. that no specific weapon has been assigned to the petitioner;

iii. that no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner;

iv. that allegations with regard to participation of the petitioner in the commission of crime are vague and inconclusive; v. that as per general allegations contained in the FIR, at the most the petitioner was carrying a blunt weapon;

vi. that the recovery of weapon of offence, if any, can be facilitated by issuing a direction to the petitioner to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer;

vii. that the benefit of anticipatory bail has already been accorded to co-accused;

viii. that the investigation and trial are not likely to be concluded in near future;

ix. that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not likely to produce a fruitful result;

x. that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose;

xi. that there is nothing on record to show that while on interim anticipatory bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and

xii. that there is nothing on record to show that while on interim anticipatory bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the investigation.

12. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled for interim anticipatory bail.

13. Thus, it is hereby ordered that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of arresting officer. However, in the meantime the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when notice is served upon him, in writing, by the Investigating Officer. He shall abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.

14. List on 28.07.2026.

15. Let status report and detailed reply, if any, be filed by the State by next date.

16. To be shown in urgent list.’

2. Learned State counsel (on instructions) submits that pursuant to the order dated 9.7.2026, the petitioner has joined investigation and is no longer required for custodial interrogation.

3. In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed. Interim order dated 9.7.2026, passed by this Court is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS.

4. This order should not be treated as “blanket” order. It will not be read as 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.

5. 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.

6. Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

(SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE 27.8.2026 Ashwanii

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No