Allowed¶29

Arjun Gupta v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC30 Sept 2025CRM-M/48117/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-M-48117-2025 (O&M); Arjun Gupta v. State of Haryana; anticipatory bail; Section 482 BNSS; FIR No.169 dated 09.04.2025; Police Station Palam Vihar, District Gurugram; BNS Sections 316(2), 317(2), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 112; interim bail order 29.08.2025 made absolute; settlement 07.08.2025 Annexure P-4; Justice Aman Chaudhary; decision date 30.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted under Section 482 BNSS; interim bail order dated 29.08.2025 made absolute subject to Section 482(2) BNSS conditions; State permitted to seek cancellation if the petitioner fails to join/cooperate with the investigating agency. ¶29

Arjun Gupta Vs State of Haryana — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

214

¶3

CRM-M-48117-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.09.2025

Arjun Gupta

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

¶10

¶11

Present : Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioner

¶12

Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, Sr. DAG Haryana

¶13

¶14

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

¶15

1 . The present petition has been filed under Section 482 BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.169 dated 09.04.2025, registered under Section 316(2), 317(2), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) and 112 of BNS, at Police Station Palam Vihar, District Gurugram.

¶16

2 . On 29.08.2025, this Court had passed the following order:-

¶17

“Learned counsel submits that the petitioner alleges false implication in the case wherein the allegations levelled are of having purchased stolen property from a scrap dealer which as a matter of fact, was a genuine transaction by making an online payment through his proprietorship concerned. Even otherwise, there is a settlement that has been arrived at on 07.08.2025, Annexure P-4. The petitioner is not involved in any other case and is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when required by the investigating agency and will cooperate.

¶18

Notice of motion.

¶19

At the asking of the Court, Mr. B.S. Saroha, DAG Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and Mr. Abhimanyu Kalsi, Advocate appears on behalf of the complainant, affirms the factum of compromise.

¶20

Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation on or before 10.09.2025. In the event of his arrest, he shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to compliance of conditions as enshrined under

¶21

MOHIT 2025.09.30 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

-2-

¶23

CRM-M-48117-2025 (O&M)

¶24

Section 482 (2) BNSS.

¶25

However, it is clarified that if the petitioner does not join and cooperate with the Investigating Agency as required by the Arresting/Investigating Officer, this interim order shall be deemed to have been vacated.

¶26

Adjourned to 30.09.2025. ”

¶27

Learned counsel submits that in pursuance of the afore-mentioned order, the petitioner has not only joined investigation but also fully cooperated with the investigating agency. He further submits that in case the investigating agency requires the petitioner to appear, he shall make himself available without demur.

¶28

Learned State counsel on instructions affirms the factum of joining the investigation by the petitioner and cooperating with the investigating agency. He also submits that at this stage, the petitioner is not required for further custodial interrogation.

¶29

In view of the above and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the order dated 29.08.2025 granting interim bail to him, is hereby made absolute, subject to compliance of conditions as specified under Section 482(2) BNSS.

¶30

6 . However, it is made clear that if the petitioner fails to join and cooperate with the investigating agency as and when required, the State would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of the present anticipatory bail granted to him.

¶31

(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

¶32

30.09.2025 M.Kamra Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No

¶33

MOHIT 2025.09.30 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Arjun Gupta v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Gupta 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

Rai Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Raj Kumar Vs Zile Singh

Surinder Kumar Vs Deepak Dahiya and Ors.

Ajaypal Vs State of Punjab

Avtar Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Jarnail Singh Vs State of Punjab