CRM-M/34672/2026 of SURVHI AGGARWAL ALIAS SURVHI AGARWAL Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 23 July 2026

1. On 25.6.2026, the following order was passed: ‘1. Through the instant petition, as instituted under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, the petitioner seeks the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.07 dated 11.01.2026, registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(3), 61(2) of the B.N.S., 2023, at P.S. Satnali, District Mahendergarh.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends, inter alia, that the petitioner is an unmarried young woman who was pursuing her studies in the 12th Standard at the time of the execution of the alleged agreement to sell. It is submitted that the petitioner’s co-accused, Vijender Kumar, who is also one of the executants of the said agreement, has already been granted the concession of interim bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.05.2026 (Annexure P-10). It is further submitted that the petitioner has also filed CRM-M-7858-2026 before this Court seeking quashing of the present FIR, wherein notice of motion has already been issued vide order dated 11.02.2026, and the investigating agency has been restrained from presenting the final report/challan without obtaining prior permission of the Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that even if the allegations are taken at face value, the same are governed by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which only renders such transactions subject to the outcome of the civil suits and does not create any criminal liability.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Kapil Bansal, D.A.G., Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent- State of Haryana. He is directed to, on or before the next date of hearing, file a status report disclosing the role and criminal antecedents of the petitioner, besides disclosing the incriminatory material, as collected by the investigating officer, which connects the petitioner with the alleged offence.

6. In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation and to appear before the investigating agency, as and when called upon to do so. In the event of her arrest, she shall be admitted to interim bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023.

7. List on 23.07.2026 along with CRM-M-28052-2026.’

2. Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of affidavit of Dr. Kavita, HPS, DSP, Narnaul, District Mahendergarh, in Court today. The same be kept on record. Copy thereof has been furnished to learned counsel for the petitioner. Raising submissions in tandem with the said status report, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is actively involved in the offence in question, therefore, she may not be granted the concession of anticipatory bail. However, learned State counsel (on instructions) submits that pursuant to the order dated 25.6.2026, the petitioner has joined investigation and is no longer required for custodial interrogation. 2.1 Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail of the petitioner by arguing that there are direct and serious allegations against the petitioner and in case she is extended the concession of anticipatory bail, there is all the likelihood that she may flee from the hands of justice and may influence the prosecution witnesses/evidence

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, especially keeping in view the factum that the petitioner has joined investigation and her custodial interrogation is not required; this Court is inclined to confirm the order dated 25.6.2026.

4. In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed. The interim order dated 25.6.2026, passed by this Court is hereby confirmed, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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 23.7.2026 Ashwanii

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No