Allowed¶19

Anil Saini v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Dec 2025CRM-M/46517/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anil Saini vs State of Haryana; CRM-M-46517-2025 (O&M); Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; decided 15.12.2025; Vinod S. Bhardwaj J (Oral); anticipatory bail; Section 482 BNSS 2023; FIR No.0396 dated 04.08.2025; Sections 105 and 123 BNS 2023; Police Station Hisar City, District Hisar; petitioner joined investigation; custodial interrogation not required; interim order dated 08.09.2025 made absolute; conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS; status report 02.12.2025 DSP Tanuj Sharma HPS; Raman Chawla for petitioner; Chhavi Sharma Astt. AG for Haryana; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; interim order dated 08.09.2025 made absolute, subject to the petitioner continuing to join investigation as and when required and abiding by the terms and conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS. ¶19

Anil Saini Vs State of Haryana — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

202

¶3

CRM-M-46517-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.12.2025

¶4

Anil Saini ...Petitioner

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

State of Haryan a ...Respondent

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr . Raman Chawla, Advocate, for t he petitioner.

¶8

Ms . Chhavi Sharma, Astt. AG, Har y ana.

¶9

¶10

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

¶11

Th e instant petition has been fil e d under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Naga r ik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner i n case bearing FIR No.0396 dated 04.08.2025 registered under Sections 105 and 123 of the Bharatiya N yaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Hisar C i ty, District Hisar.

¶12

St a tus report dated 02.12.2025 by way of an affidavit of Tanuj Sharma, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of P olice, Hisar on behalf of respondent-Stat e has been filed by the learne d State Counsel today in the Court. The sam e is taken on record. Registry is d irected to tag the same at an appropriate pla c e.

¶13

Le a rned counsel for the petitio n er inter alia contends that pursuant to the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined investigation and is no longer req u ired for investigation of the case.

¶14

Le a rned State counsel on instru c tions, corroborates the said averment and s u bmits that the custodial interro g ation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation.

¶15

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.16 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

¶17

202 CRM-M-46517-2025(O&M)

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

Since the petitioner has joined the investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required, the present petition is allowed and the interim order dated 08.09.2025 is made absolute.

¶20

However, if required, the petitioner(s) shall continue to join investigation as and when required to do so and shall abide by the terms and conditions, as laid down under Section 482 (2) BNSS.

¶21

15.12.2025 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Sumit Gusain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶22

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.16 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Anil Saini v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Saini 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

Balesh and Others Vs Union of India and Anr.

Veer Chand Vs State of Punjab

Dilpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Nishan Singh Alias Chaura Vs State of Punjab

Ravinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gurjant Singh Vs State of Punjab