Allowed

Rashad Mohd Battey Alias Raju Battey v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2026CRM-M/37825/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed a petition for anticipatory bail filed under Section 482 BNSS, making the interim order absolute. The petitioner was directed to continue joining investigation. It was clarified that arrest upon addition of new offences requires a fresh order, citing a Supreme Court judgment.

What did the court decide?

Interim order dated 14.07.2026 made absolute; petitioner to join investigation; arrest on added offences requires fresh court order.

Rashad Mohd Battey Alias Raju Battey Vs State of… — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRM-M-37825-2026

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 206 AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-37825-2026 Date of decision: 10.09.2026

¶5

RASHAD MOHD BATTEY @ RAJU BATTEY ….PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL

¶9

Present: Mr. Mohd. Salim, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.

¶11

¶12

H.S.GREWAL,J. (ORAL)

¶13

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.) seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 0112 dated 04.05.2026, registered under Section 318 (4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station City-I, Malerkotla, District Malerkotla.

¶14

This Court, vide order dated 14.07.2026, had directed the petitioner to appear before the SHO/Investigating Officer and join investigation and in the event of his arrest, he was ordered to be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the SHO/Investigating Officer, subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.).

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order dated 14.07.2026, passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined and cooperated with the investigation.

¶16

Learned State counsel states that the petitioner has joined the

¶17

RENU RAWAT 2026.09.10 17.17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-37825-2026

¶19

¶20

investigation and is not required for further custodial interrogation.

¶21

Mr. Ghulam Nabi Malik, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and has filed Vakalatnama in the Court today, which is taken on record. He has vehemently opposed the prayer made by ld. counsel for the petitioner.

¶22

In view of the statement made by learned State counsel, the petition is allowed and the interim order dated 14.07.2026 is made absolute . The petitioner shall continue to join investigation, as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

¶23

However, it is clarified that the investigating authority on addition of an offence or offences may not proceed to arrest the accused/petitioner, but for arresting the accused/petitioner on such addition of offence or offences it needs to obtain an order to arrest the accused/petitioners from the Court which had granted the bail in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumit Vs State of U.P. and Another , Criminal Appeal No. 830 of 2026, decided on 09.02.2026.

¶24

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

¶25

10.09.2026			(H.S.GREWAL)
renu			JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned:	Yes/No
	Whether reportable:	Yes/No

¶26

RENU RAWAT 2026.09.10 17.17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Rashad Mohd Battey Alias Raju Battey v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashad Mohd Battey Alias Raju Battey v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases