IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

232 CRM-M-33838-2025(O&M) Date of Decision: 31.10.2025 AKSHIT MITTAL ...Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present:- Mr. Samay Sandhawalia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Saumya Ahluwalia, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Gautam Dutt, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anurag Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2.

*****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (Oral)

1. Apprehending his arrest the petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.374 dated 05.06.2025, under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 61, 62, 64(1), 74, 75(2) and 85 of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station City Yamuna Nagar, Yamuna Nagar.

2. This Court on 18.08.2025 passed the following order:-

“Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No. 374 dated 05.6.2025, under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 61, 62, 64(1), 74, 75(2) and 85 of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station City Yamuna Nagar, Yamuna Nagar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by his wife-respondent No. 2 and the present FIR is a counter blast to the divorce petition filed by the petitioner against respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that there is a delay of more than one year in lodging the present FIR. Further, there is no medical evidence to substantiate the allegations levelled against the petitioner, which have been so levelled only to extort a heavy

2025.10.31 16:45 settlement amount from the petitioner. It has also been submitted that vide order dated 24.6.2025 passed by this Court in CRM-M- 33191-2025, the father of the petitioner has already been granted interim anticipatory bail. Moreover, the mother of the petitioner has also been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned. It is also submitted that the matter could not be settled before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.

Per contra learned State counsel as well as the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 oppose the present petition. They submit that since serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.

One of the main pillars of jurisprudence on which the criminal justice system is based, is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. If seen in that context, the provision of anticipatory bail, in its essence, can be understood as a safeguard to prevent the curtailment of liberty of an individual, a cherished constitutional guarantee, in circumstances where arrest may be unwarranted, arbitrary, or mala fide. This discretionary power, trite to say, must be exercised judiciously, based on considerations, which include but are not limited to, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the antecedents of the accused, the possibility of the fleeing from justice, and the likelihood of the evidence being tampered with and witnesses being influenced.

Reverting to the case in hand, pertinently, there is a substantial delay in the registration of the instant FIR. All the contentions made herein are disputed questions of facts, which shall be determined during the course of trial. Moreover, the co- accused, who are the parents of the petitioner, have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail. Furthermore, the dispute between the parties could not be settled before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.

In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to join investigation before the Investigating Agency/Officer. He shall abide by the following conditions as envisaged under Section

482(2) BNSS, 2023;-

(1) That the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required to do so.

(2) That the pet