Supreme Court of India
SUNIL KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA on 27 October 2026
ITEM NO.17 COURT NO.5 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 19875/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-09-2026
in CRMM No. 54729/2026 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh]
SUNIL KUMAR & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s)
FOR ADMISSION
IA No. 318700/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 27-10-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Atull Dhankhar, Adv.
Mr. Bijendra Dhankhar, Adv.
Mr. Ranvir Parasher, Adv.
Mr. Udian Sharma- 3956, AOR
Mr. Manav Mitra, Adv.
Ms. Subhika Joshi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anurag Kulharia, AOR
Mr. Gyaaneshwar Joshi, Adv.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
Date: 2026.10.28
16:58:49 IST
Reason:
Signature Not Verified
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
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.
O R D E R
1. The Petitioners herein are apprehending arrest in connection with FIR No. 194/26 registered on 12.05.2026 against the petitioners in connection with offences under Section 140(3) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and is alleged to have abducted the minor son of the complainant.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the parents of the abducted child are estranged and that the Petitioners were present in the compound at the behest of the child’s father, Petitioner No. 1 being his friend and Petitioner No. 2, his relative.
3. In view of the underlying matrimonial dispute, a prima facie case of abduction is not made out in the present circumstances, thereby warranting the grant of anticipatory bail to both the Petitioners.
4. On a prima facie consideration of the material on record, we are of the opinion that the petitioner can be released on anticipatory bail. We order that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the offence enumerated above, he shall be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions that the Investigating Officer (for short “I.O.”) may deem fit to impose, on condition also of continued cooperation in the investigation.
5. With the above directions, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of.
6. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (CHANDRESH) (POOJA SHARMA) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)