Rustam vs State of Haryana

Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.200 dated 13.06.2026, under Sctions 190, 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 351(3) and 103 (1) BNS, Police Station Rajendera Park, Gurugram, District Gurugram. This is the first petition for anticipatory bail.

Case was registered on complaint of Sandeep brother of Ajay, who alleged that for the last 5-7 days, Rijakpal, Ravi and Manjeet, Rustum (petitioner), Parena, Rewala Khanpur were threatening them and abusing them on phone. Thereafter, they were called by Rustam and Sanjeet for compromise at village Daulatabad. On 11.06.2026, he along with his elder brother Punit, father Vikram, Ajay and friend Suresh, went to Daulatabad in their vehicle i.e. Swift, where they compromised the matter. When they were returning to their house and reached near Consient Mall, information was received that Rijakpal, Ravi, Sanjeet, Rustam, Sameer, Namina, Virat, Tinu, Varsha, Asha, Mohit, Arman, Preet, Ashu, Chhoti, Sawan and other persons stopped his brother Ajay and his friend Suresh. Assailants assaulted his brother Ajay and Suresh with blunt weapons, axe, stick, danda and stones. Thereafter, they admitted them in the hospital for treatment where his brother Ajay died and Suresh suffering serious injuries.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was innocent and had been falsely implicated. The main dispute of complainant and deceased Ajay was with Ravi and Sanjeet. Petitioner was called only for a compromise. There was neither any injury attributed to petitioner nor any recovery was to be effected, therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG Haryana, who is present in the Court accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail arguing that petitioner’s presence at the scene of crime was recorded in the CCTV footage, procured during the course of investigation. 17 accused were implicated in the case, out of which 10 were still at large including the petitioner. Custodial interrogation of petitioner was required to elicit true facts and for just and proper investigation.

Petitioner is alleged to have murdered Ajay, brother of the complainant, attacking him with weapons like axe, stick and stone. Allegations against him are speecific and serious. His custodial interrogation would be necessitated for just and proper effective investigation. The benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of course or routine. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court is required to balance the right of the prosecution for free, fair and unhindered investigation as also personal liberty of the accused and interest of the society. Role attributed to the accused is required to be considered with great care and caution. Anticipatory bail being an extra-ordinary remedy is to be granted only in exceptional circumstances, where the Court is prima facie of the view that the accused has been falsely involved in the crime.

There are no extra ordinary circumstances made out to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail. Dismissed.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.