Allowed¶7

Neekunj Gupta v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC29 May 2026CRM-M/15402/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail allowed; CRM M-15402-2026; decided 29.05.2026 by N.S.SHEKHAWAT, Judge; business-transaction dispute; compromise/settlement deed dated 1st May 2026 before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre; complainant raised no objection; State alleged serious allegations against petitioner; custodial interrogation held not required; bail subject to Section 482(2) BNSS conditions; Investigating Officer may call petitioner to join investigation by written notice.

What did the court decide?

Concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, with liberty to the Investigating Officer to call the petitioner to join investigation by written notice. ¶7

Neekunj Gupta Vs State of Haryana — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in a case arising out of a business transaction between the parties, in view of the compromise deed dated 1st May 2026, notwithstanding the State's objection that there are serious allegations against the petitioner.

¶3

Court's answer

As the matter pertains to a business transaction between the parties and both parties have signed a compromise deed dated 1st May 2026 before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of the Court, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be required.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Without commenting any further on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted the concession of anticipatory bail, subject to the conditions provided under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

¶7

Key takeaways

It will be open to the Investigating Officer to call the petitioner to join investigation, if so required, by issuing a written notice, and the petitioner shall abide by the conditions mentioned in Section 482(2) of the BNSS.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail (CRM M-15402-2026) — Dispute arose out of a business transaction between the parties; counsel for the petitioner contended he had been falsely involved being the son of the main accused and that the matter had been amicably resolved. During the proceedings both parties signed a compromise deed dated 1st May 2026 before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of the Court; counsel for the complainant raised no objection to the petition being allowed, while the State opposed bail on the ground of serious allegations. Held: since the matter pertains to a business transaction and the parties have since compromised, custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be required; without commenting further on the merits, the petition is allowed and anticipatory bail granted subject to the conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS; the Investigating Officer may call the petitioner to join investigation, if required, by written notice, and the petitioner shall abide by the said conditions.

¶1

AMIT RANA 2026.05.29 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgement/order

¶2

CRM M-15402-2026 2

¶3

the sole proprietor of the firm, and the petitioner had no concern with the said firm. In fact, he has been falsely involved in the present case, as unfortunately, he happens to be the son of the main accused. Learned counsel next contends that now the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties and a settlement deed dated 1^st May 2026 has been arrived between the parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.

¶4

On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled for the concession of anticipatory bail.

¶5

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the parties have resolved all their disputes and he has no objection in case the petition is allowed by this Court.

¶6

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶7

It is not in dispute that the matter pertains to a business transaction between the parties and it is also apparent from the record that now both the parties have signed a compromise deed dated 1^st May 2026 before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. Consequently, in the considered opinion of the Court, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be required.

¶8

Without commenting any further on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted concession of anticipatory bail, subject to the conditions as provided under Section

¶9

AMIT RANA 2026.05.29 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgement/order

¶10

CRM M-15402-2026 3

¶11

482(2) of the BNSS. It will be open for the Investigating Officer to call the petitioner to join investigation, if so required, by issuing a written notice in this regard and he shall abide by the conditions mentioned in Section482(2) of the BNSS.

¶12

29.05.2026 amit rana		(N.S.SHEKHAWAT) JUDGE
	Whether reasoned/speaking	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶13

AMIT RANA 2026.05.29 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgement/order

Neekunj Gupta v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neekunj 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

Harinder Singh Alias Babbi Vs State of Punjab

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Rishi Pal Vs State of Hry

Raj Kumar Alias Raju Vs State of Punjab

Amit Rawal Vs State of Haryana

Jaswant Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.