Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/41803/2026 of POOJA Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER on 13 August 2026
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.41803 of 2026 Date of Decision:-13.08.2026 Pooja …..Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another .....Respondents. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL ***** Present:- Mr. Prabhjeet Singh Sullar, Advocate for the
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.
107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.41803 of 2026 Date of Decision:-13.08.2026
Pooja …..Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another .....Respondents.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL ***** Present:- Mr. Prabhjeet Singh Sullar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Sahni, Addl. A.G, Haryana.
Mr. Ajay Nain, Advocate
for respondent No.2-complainant.
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)
This is the third petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.45 dated 09.03.2026 registered under Sections 308(2), 308(6) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS’), at Police Station City Narwana, District Jind, the first having been withdrawn on 24.03.2026 so as to enable the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of approaching the Court of Sessions and the second was dismissed on merits by a coordinate Bench vide order dated 27.05.2026 passed in CRM-M YAG DUTT
CRM-M No.41803 of 2026 -2-
No.20826 of 2026.
2. On the statement of one Satbir, the instant FIR was registered. The allegation was that a lady named 'X' had got FIR No.41 dated 07.03.2026 registered against his nephew Sumit and his friend at Police Station Narwana City falsely accusing them of raping her daughter 'Y'. It was alleged that 'X' and her associates had blackmailed the complainant and had demanded Rs.30 lakhs from him. It was alleged that the prosecutrix was to appear in the Court and depose in favour of the accused after which a sum of Rs.27 lakhs, as had finally been decided, was to be paid to them. The said amount was duly paid and since a complaint had been submitted, a raid was conducted and the said amount of Rs.27 lakhs was recovered from one Vikas @ Bucha.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that after dismissal of the second anticipatory bail application, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. He further submits that co-accused Vikas @ Bucha, from whom Rs.27 lakhs had been recovered upon the raid having been conducted, has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 06.07.2026 passed in CRM-M No.24404 of 2026 (Annexure P-7). Learned counsel submits that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. He further submits that under the circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to file and maintain this third petition for the grant of anticipatory bail.
4. Mr. Ajay Nain, Advocate, has caused appearance on behalf of respondent No.2-complainant despite no notice having been issued. He YAG DUTT
CRM-M No.41803 of 2026 -3-
submits that a compromise has indeed been arrived at between the parties.
5. As noticed, the first anticipatory bail application was withdrawn to enable the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy. The second anticipatory bail application was dismissed on merits by a coordinate Bench vide order dated 27.05.2026 passed in CRM-M No.20826 of 2026. Co-accused Vikas @ Bucha was granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 06.07.2026 passed in CRM-M No.24404 of 2026. In the considered opinion of this Court, neither of the two factors i.e. a compromise having been arrived at or co-accused Vikas @ Bucha having been granted regular bail would entitle the petitioner to file this third petition for the grant of anticipatory bail. In so far as the question of a compromise having been arrived at is concerned, the same is irrelevant keeping in view the nature of the offence. The grant of regular bail to a co-accused also does not help the petitioner since the parameters for the grant of anticipatory bail and regular bail are entirely different.
6. That being so, the present petition is found to be not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.
7. However, nothing stated herein above shall be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL) August 13, 2026
JUDGE Yag Dutt
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No YAG DUTT