Allowed

Rajroop Yadav @ Bunty v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2026CRM-M/18904/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed a petition for interim anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS. The court converted the interim bail into absolute bail, noting that the petitioner had joined the investigation and the case involved Section 238 BNS regarding unlawful detention, making custodial interrogation unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail converted into absolute bail; petitioner directed to join investigation as called by IO and abide by conditions of Section 482(2) BNSS.

Rajroop Yadav @ Bunty Vs State of Haryana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

205

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M No.18904 of 2026 Date of decision: 10.09.2026

¶4

Rajroop Yadav @ Bunty

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

…Responden t

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S. SHEKHAWAT

¶10

Present :- Mr. Kartik Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner (through VC) .

¶11

Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, Senior DAG, Haryana.

¶12

Mr. Amardeep Sheoran, Advocate for the complainant.

¶13

¶14

N.S. SHEKHAWAT, J .( Oral )

¶15

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of B.N.S.S with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail to him in case FIR No.56 dated 27.03.2026, under Sections 305 of BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 380 IPC) registered at Police Station Rampura, District Rewari.

¶16

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 238 of BNS may be ordered to be added in the head-note as well as the prayer clause of the present case.

¶17

The prayer is accepted and Section 238 of BNS is ordered to

¶18

be added in the head-note as well as the prayer clause of the present case.

¶19

SEEMA SHARMA 2026.09.10 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRM-M No.18904 of 2026

¶21

-2-

¶22

The Registry of this Court is directed to carry out the necessary correction in this regard.

¶23

While granting the concession of interim anticipatory bail, this Court had noticed the following conditions on 10.04.2026:-

¶24

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner had availed loan from PolicyBazaar.com which was cleared in January 2026 and that no objection had to be taken by the petitioner for the said purpose, therefore she went to complainant’s house to collect the documents and thereafter visited the office of PolicyBazaar.com. He further contends that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and that she is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called for and to extend all cooperation to the Investigating Agency.

¶25

Adjourned to 17.07.2026.

¶26

Reply, if any, be filed on or before the adjourned date with copy in advance to the learned counsel opposite.

¶27

In the meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join investigation as and when so required by the Investigating Agency. In the event of the petitioner joining the investigation, she shall be admitted to interim bail by the arresting officer/investigating officer on her furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer. The petitioner(s) shall also abide by the conditions as specified under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) of 2023.”

¶28

SEEMA SHARMA 2026.09.10 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CRM-M No.18904 of 2026 -3-

¶30

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the above-submissions and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation in the present case and had co-operated with the Investigating Officer of the case. He further submits that in the present case, the petitioner was illegally detained and even the proceedings have already initiated against the Investigating officer of the present case due to lapses committed by him during the course of investigation.

¶31

On the other hand, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has joined the investigation, however she has not co-operated with the Investigating Officer of the case.

¶32

However this fact could not be disputed that the departmental proceedings have already been initiated against the Investigating Officer of the present case, due to lapses on his part. Apart from that Section 238 of BNS has also been added in the present case.

¶33

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

¶34

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has already been joined the investigation repeatedly. Still further the offence under Section 238 of BNS has already been added in the present case and in view of the said development, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Interim order dated 10.04.2026 is made absolute. The petitioner shall

¶35

SEEMA SHARMA 2026.09.10 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

CRM-M No.18904 of 2026 -4-

¶37

continue to join the investigation, as and when called by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as specified under Section 482 (2) of B.N.S.S .

¶38

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.

¶39

( N.S. SHEKHAWAT) 10.09.2026 JUDGE seema Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶40

SEEMA SHARMA 2026.09.10 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Rajroop Yadav @ Bunty v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajroop Yadav @ Bunty v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases