CRM-M/34108/2026 of POONAM RANI Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 21 August 2026

1. On 17.6.2026, the following order was passed: ‘Instant petition is preferred under Section 482 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 438 read with Section 482 Cr.PC) seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.552 dated 18.07.2025 under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 338, 336 (3), 340(2), 61(2), 238, 241 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) (erstwhile Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201, 204 IPC) registered at Police Station Kundli, District Sonipat. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner is a senior citizen suffering from various age-related ailments and earns his livelihood by running a small garment shop. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner was never employed with the Education Department and had no role whatsoever in the preparation or processing of the alleged forged bills forming the subject matter of the FIR. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner’s son, Gagan, was acquainted with the main accused, Manoj Anand, and had regular financial dealings with him. Further, it is contended that certain amounts were transferred by Manoj Anand into the petitioner’s bank account towards repayment of money allegedly borrowed from the petitioner’s son. The petitioner neither had any concern with the transactions underlying the alleged offence nor any knowledge regarding the source of the funds so transferred. It is further argued that the petitioner herself has been deceived by the co- accused and has been unnecessarily roped into the criminal proceedings solely on account of the transfer of funds into his bank account. Learned counsel also submits that no notice requiring the petitioner to join the investigation has been served upon him and that she has throughout cooperated with the investigating agency. It is lastly contended that the petitioner has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other criminal case. Notice of motion for 19.08.2026. Keeping in view the ratio of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2010 SCC OnLine SC 137; Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. Vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565, Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State of NCT Delhi 2020 (1) RCR (Criminal) 833, the petitioner is directed to appear before Investigating Officer within a period of two weeks from today and thereafter, as directed by the Investigating Officer. In the event of arrest, the petitioner will be admitted to interim anticipatory bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Investigating/Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation/Arresting Officer and abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of BNSS (erstwhile Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). If the Arresting Officer does not permit the petitioner to join the investigation, she would appear before learned Illaqa Magistrate, who would then summon the Arresting Officer and direct her to join the petitioner in the investigation, in terms of the order of this Court. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court and learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law.’

2. Learned State counsel (on instructions) submits that pursuant to the order dated 17.6.2026, 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 17.6.2026, 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 21.8.2026 Ashwanii

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No