IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

325 Date of decision: 16.02.2026 HARSH @ HARISH YADAV AND ANOTHER ….Petitioners Versus STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. Jaivir Yadav, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tapan Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Ashutosh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Ambanshu Sahni, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.05 dated 02.01.2026 registered under Sections 115, 3(5), 305, 333 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Gurgaon Sadar, District Gurugram.

2. On 29.01.2026, following order was passed by this Court: -

“Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.05 dated 02.01.2026 registered under Sections 115, 3(5), 305, 333 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Gurgaon Sadar, District Gurugram.

Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioners along with other co-accused entered the house of the complainant after breaking open the lock and committed theft of cameras. Hence, the present FIR.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioners are husband and wife and are bonafide purchasers of the plot in question with their hard earned money by way of registered sale deed dated 13.11.2024 from Rishi Thakran and his wife Bharti. Thereafter, they took possession and raised the boundary wall, installed iron gate and constructed rooms over the said plot. He argued that in fact, a civil dispute is pending between the parties pertaining to said plot and the present FIR has been lodged only when complainant failed to take the possession of said land. He further submitted that it is the complainant who has broke the locks and stole cameras installed (by the petitioners) in the plot in question.

Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

Notice of motion.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chinna, Sr. DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and seeks time to file status report in the matter.

At this stage, Mr. Ambanshu Sahni, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record and he, while opposing the petition for anticipatory bail, has contended that the petitioners are the main perpetrators of the crime and, thus, do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.

Adjourned to 16.02.2026.

In the meantime, the petitioners are directed to join investigation within a week from today and would appear as and when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the Investigating Agency. In the event of arrest, they shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioners shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order dated 29.01.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation.

4. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from SI Sanjeev, has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is no longer required for further investigation.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the offence committed by petitioner is serious in nature and hence, opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner.

6. In view of the statement made by learned State counsel, the interim order dated 29.01