Allowed

Ravinder Dagar Alias Kalli v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2026CRM-M/40411/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in connection with an FIR registered under various BNS provisions. The Court observed that as the petitioner had joined investigation and custodial interrogation was not required, the case for anticipatory bail was made out. The interim bail order was made absolute.

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail was allowed and the interim bail order dated 03.08.2026 was made absolute subject to conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS.

Ravinder Dagar Alias Kalli Vs State of Haryana — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRM-M-40411-2026 (O&M) (1)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

(204) CRM-M-40411-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.09.2026

¶4

RAVINDER DAGAR ALIAS KALLI . .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

¶8

Present: M r . Rakesh Sobti, Advocate for the petitioner

¶9

M r . Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryan a M r . Nazim Khilluka, Advocate fo r the complainant

¶10

¶11

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

T h rough the instant petition u nder Section 482 of the Bharatiya Na g arik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FI R No.207 dated 10.06.2026 registered und e r Sections 231, 233, 221, 12 5 , 238, 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) at Pol i ce Station Gadpuri, District Palwal.

¶13

Vide order dated 03.08.2026 p assed by this Court, the petitioner was released on interim bail a nd was directed to join investigation.

¶14

AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶15

CRM-M-40411-2026 (O&M) (1)

¶16

L e arned State counsel filed status report dated 09.09.2026 and on instructions states that the petitioner has joined the investigation on 13.08.2026 an d the custodial interrogation of t h e petitioner is not required.

¶17

L e arned counsel for the compl a inant has argued that the allegations aga i nst the petitioner are serious a n d specific in nature and the custodial interr o gation of the petitioner is must.

¶18

T h is Court has heard the rival s u bmissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

In view of the fact that the petit i oner has already joined the investigation a n d given the nature of allegatio n s, his pre-trial incarceration is not require d . As such, without commenti n g on merits of case, it is observed that a case for grant of anticipatory b ail is made out in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is a l lowed and the order dated 03.08.2026 gra n ting interim bail to the petitio n er is made absolute, subject to compliance o f conditions laid down in Secti o n 482(2) of BNSS.

¶20

Si n ce the main petition has b een disposed of, pending application, if a ny, is rendered infructuous.

¶21

(MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE

¶22

10.09.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No

¶23

Amit Sharma

¶24

AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Ravinder Dagar Alias Kalli v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinder Dagar Alias Kalli 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