IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 23.09.2025 Jaswant Singh @ Jaswant ……Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Haryana and another ……Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Paramjit Singh Jammu, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab.

for respondent No.1.

Mr. Naresh Kumar Ganga, Advocate for respondent No.2.

*****

Sumeet Goel (Oral):

1. Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.49 dated 13.02.2025 registered for offences punishable under Section 115(2), 351(2), 3(5), 351(3) of BNS 2023 and Sections 3(1) (R), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(VA) of SC/ST, Act at Police Station Ellenabad, District Sirsa; the petitioner has preferred the present appeal seeking pre-arrest bail.

2. On 21.07.2025, the following order was passed:

“Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.49 dated 13.02.2025 registered for offences punishable under Section 115(2), 351(2), 3(5), 351(3) of BNS 2023 and Sections 3(1) (R), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(VA) of SC/ST, Act at Police Station Ellenabad, District Sirsa; the petitioner has preferred the present appeal seeking pre-arrest bail.

Counsel for the appellant, inter alia, contends that the appellant has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question on account of a Panchayat related dispute, the FIR in question was registered on 13.02.2025, whereas appellant(herein) has filed a complaint in this regard before the police one day prior thereto i.e. 12.02.2025 & the appellant is willing to join investigation and cooperate therein. In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the dicta of the judgment of this Court in Arvind Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2024(2) Law Herald 970.

Notice of motion.

On the strength of advance notice; Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG, Haryana has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent No.1-State of Haryana.

Adjourned to 19.08.2025.

The appellant is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 28.07.2025 at 11:00 A.M. in concerned Police Station and join investigation. In the event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on interim bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. As and when further called by Investigating Officer, the appellant shall join the investigation. He shall abide by the condition(s) enumerated under Section

482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.”

3. Learned State counsel (on instructions from SI Shamsher Singh) has submitted that the appellant has joined investigation and he is not required for further custodial interrogation.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant while relying upon the averments contained in CRM-30922-2025 has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant. He has submitted that allegations raised against the appellant are direct/serious in nature and hence he ought not to be granted concession of anticipatory bail. He has further iterated that in case the appellant is extended the concession of anticipatory bail, there is all the likelihood that he may interfere with the investigation as also intimidate the witnesses and also the FIR-complainant.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties and upon perusal of the record; especially the factum of the appellant having joined investigation and he is not being required by the State and the allegations raised by the FIR-complainant in CRM-30922-2025 having been looked into by the State and the same are not being substantiated; this Court is inclined to confirm the order dated 21.07.2025 granting anticipatory bail to the appellant.

6. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and order dated 21.07.2025 granting anticipatory bail to the appellant is hereby made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS.

7. This order should not be treated as “blanket” order. It will not be read granting appellant indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibi