Allowed¶37

Sonelal and Ors. v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC15 May 2025CRM-M/14356/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-M-14356-2025 (O&M); Sonelal and others v. State of Haryana; High Court of Punjab and Haryana; Mahabir Singh Sindhu, J.; decided 15.05.2025; pre-arrest bail; Section 482 BNSS; FIR No.6 dated 05.01.2024; Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC; abetment of suicide; interim bail order dated 18.03.2025 made absolute; petitioners joined investigation; custodial interrogation not required; conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS; observations confined to bail matter; recall liberty reserved to State.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners; interim order dated 18.03.2025 made absolute subject to conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS, with a direction that the petitioners shall fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer as and when called for further investigation. ¶37

Sonelal and Ors. Vs State of Haryana — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail in FIR No.6 dated 05.01.2024 under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC registered at Police Station Kheripul, Faridabad.

¶16

Court's answer

The objection raised by the complainant's counsel is not accepted because the State is not seeking custodial interrogation of the petitioners, who have already joined investigation pursuant to the interim order dated 18.03.2025.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

There being no justification to deny the concession of pre-arrest bail, the petition is allowed and the interim order dated 18.03.2025 is made absolute, subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

¶37

Key takeaways

The observations in the order are confined only to deciding the bail matter and are not to be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.obiter¶42
In case of any recurrence on the part of the petitioners, the State would be at liberty to move an appropriate application for recalling of this order.obiter¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Pre-arrest bail - Petition under Section 482 BNSS by the accused in FIR No.6 dated 05.01.2024 (Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC, P.S. Kheripul, Faridabad), alleging that they pressurised and instigated the son of the de facto complainant to settle the matter and pay Rs.5 lakh, due to which he committed suicide. The petitioners had been granted interim bail vide order dated 18.03.2025 and had joined investigation in pursuance thereof; learned State Counsel acknowledged that their custodial interrogation was not required. The complainant's objection was rejected on that ground. Petition allowed; interim order dated 18.03.2025 made absolute subject to the conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS, with a further direction that the petitioners shall fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer. Observations confined to the bail matter and not an expression of opinion on merits; State at liberty to move for recall of the order in case of any recurrence.

¶1

CRM-M-14356-2025

¶2

205

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-14356-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 15.05.2025

Sonelal and others

..Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU

¶11

Present: Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Neeraj Sheoran, DAG, Haryana.

¶13

Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate; Mr. Rahul Vohra, Advocate; Mr. Yatin Mehra, Advocate and Mr. Rajat Singla, Advocate for the complainant.

¶14

¶15

MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.

¶16

Present petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( for short, ‘the B.N.S.S.’ ) has been filed for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in FIR No.6 dated 05.01.2024, under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), registered at Police Station Kheripul Faridabad, District Faridabad.

¶17

(2) Allegations are that petitioners in furtherance of their common intention had pressurized and instigated Keshav Verma, son

¶18

DIWAKER GULATI 2025.05.17 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

-1-

¶20

CRM-M-14356-2025

¶21

of de facto complainant to settle the matter and to pay Rs.5 lakh, due to which he committed suicide.

¶22

(3) Learned counsel contends that petitioners were granted interim bail by this Court, vide order dated 18.03.2025 and in pursuance thereof, they have already joined the investigation; hence, their custodial interrogation is not required.

¶23

(4) Learned State counsel, on instructions from the quarter concerned, acknowledged the above factual position, and submits that as on today, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required.

¶24

(5) On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner on the premise that petitioners have pressurized the son of the de facto complainant and as a result of which he committed suicide.

¶25

(6) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book.

¶26

(7) It transpires that petitioners were granted interim bail by this Court, vide order dated 18.03.2025 and the order reads as under:-

¶27

“Learned counsel contends inter alia that there is no abetment or instigation on the part of the petitioners and moreover, there was an amicable settlement entered into between the parties on 03.01.2024.

¶28

Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and filed his Vakalatnama. The same is taken on record. Registry to tag the same at appropriate place.

¶29

DIWAKER GULATI 2025.05.17 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

-2-

¶31

CRM-M-14356-2025

¶32

Learned State counsel as well as complainant vehemently opposed the interim prayer on the premise that deceased was forced to enter into settlement by the police official namely ASI Neelam Yadav. However, on asking of this Court, neither learned State counsel, nor the complainant is able to show any material regarding the alleged attribution made against the police official.

¶33

Posted for 15.05.2025.

¶34

In the meanwhile, petitioners shall join investigation before the Investigating Officer, but they be not arrested till the next date of hearing.”

¶35

(8) It is duly acknowledged by learned State Counsel that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, petitioners have joined investigation and their custodial interrogation is not required.

¶36

(9) The objection raised by learned counsel for complainant is not accepted for the reason that State is not asking for custodial interrogation of the petitioners.

¶37

(10) In view of the above, there is no justification to deny the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Consequently, present petition is allowed; interim order dated 18.03.2025 is made absolute subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

¶38

(11) It is also made clear that petitioners shall fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer as and when called for further investigation.

¶39

DIWAKER GULATI 2025.05.17 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶40

-3-

¶41

CRM-M-14356-2025

¶42

(12) The above observations be not construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case; rather confined only to decide the bail matter.

¶43

(13) It is also clarified that in case of any recurrence on the part of petitioners, State would be at liberty to move an appropriate application for recalling of this order.

¶44

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

¶45

15.05.2025	(MAHABIR SINGH	SINDHU)
d.gulati	JUDGE
Whether speaking / reasoned :	Yes	No
Whether Reportable :	Yes	No

¶46

DIWAKER GULATI 2025.05.17 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶47

-4-

Sonelal and Ors. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonelal and Ors. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaideep Vs State of Haryana and Another

Karanbir Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Harjinder Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab

Avtar Singh Alias Ghugh Alias Amarjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jatinder Singh Alias Tejinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Kulwant Singh Vs State of Punjab