Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2026

Mr. Partap Singh, Advocate, Mr. Manav Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Manav Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Vikas, Advocate for the petitioner the petitioner. Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana. Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana. , J. (Oral) SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL ***** ***** ***** ***** filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 438 of the Cr. for grant of anticipatory bail to the Section 438 of the Cr. P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No. in case bearing FIR No.238 dated registered for the dated 22.06.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 305, 331(3), 338, offences punishable under Sections 336(3) and 340(2) of the 305, 331(3), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Hodal, (for short ‘BNS’), at Police Station Hodal, District Palwal, Haryana. District Palwa

#2. the complainant The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the complainant The gravamen of the FIR in question is that alleged that on 22.06.2026, while inspecting the parked vehicles near the Mini on 22.06.2026, while inspecting the parked vehicles near the Mini while inspecting the parked vehicles near the Mini Secretariat, Hodal, he found that in an FIR No. Secretariat, Hodal, .02.2016, registered FIR No.62 dated 09.02.2016, registered truck bearing under Sections 279, 283 and 304A IPC at Police Station Hodal, a truck bearing under Sections 279, 283 and 304A IPC at Police Station Hodal, under Sections 279, 283 and 304A IPC at Police Station Hodal, 2026 39294----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----39294 20262026 39294 39294 2222 registration No.WB-41E-8793, which was taken into police custody by ASI Fateh Singh vide DD No.15, Serial No.1259 dated 09.02.2016 and was parked at the aforesaid location, was missing. He further received secret information that the truck had been removed by Pushpender, Advocate (petitioner herein), practising at Hodal Courts, with the assistance of a Hydra crane after unloading the cement pipes loaded on it. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR. Learned counsel has submitted that the alleged online payment of `42,000/- received by the petitioner towards the transfer of the truck in question to Tosif is independently verifiable from the relevant bank and UPI transaction records. However, the alleged cash payment of `2,55,000/-, purportedly received by the petitioner in connection with the said transaction, is a matter requiring evidentiary scrutiny during the trial and cannot be treated as an established fact merely on the basis of the allegations levelled against him. It has been further argued that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged release order, Court seal and aforesaid truck No.WB-41E-8793 and the same is a mere submission on the part of the prosecution before the Court below and not an adjudicated finding. Learned counsel has further argued that the material already secured can be examined forensically and the alleged outstanding articles can be traced while directing the petitioner to join and cooperate with the investigation under strict conditions. Learned counsel has urged that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the petitioner. It has been further urged that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required keeping in view the factual milieu of the case in hand when the movement and present location of a heavy 2026 39294----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----39294 20262026 39294 39294 3333 commercial vehicle (truck in question) are capable of being traced through Tosif, (the person to whom the petitioner is alleged to have sold the truck in question).

3.1. Learned counsel has asserted that custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and, hence, no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

#4. Learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. It is argued that forged superdari order, seal of the Court and stolen truck in question are to be recovered from the petitioner. It is, thus, argued that given the severity of the offence, there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioner may abscond from the process of justice and/or tamper with the prosecution witnesses/ evidence, if he is enlarged on bail. Learned State counsel has iterated that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative for the purpose of effective and fair investigation and to unearth the case of the prosecution. On these submissions, dismissal of the present petition is entreated for.

#5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.

#6. As per the prosecution case and the material available on record, prima facie, serious and specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It is borne out from the prosecution case that the allegations against the petitioner are not confined to the commission of theft simpliciter. As per the prosecution, the petitioner is alleged to have forged the superdari release order 2026 39294----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----39294 20262026 39294 39294 4444 pertaining to the truck in question involved in FIR No.62 dated 09.02.2016 and, by using the said forged order, removed the case property from police custody without the knowledge or permission of the police authorities. It is further the case of the prosecution that the petitioner thereafter sold the said truck to one Tosif for a total consideration of `2,97,000/-, out of which `42,000/- was allegedly received through online transfer and the remaining amount of `2,55,000/- in cash. During investigation, the alleged superdari release order is stated to have been got verified from the concerned Court, whereupon it was found to be forged. The Court below while rejecting the anticipatory bail application of petitioner observed that the allegations strike at the sanctity of judicial proceedings as the prosecution asserts that the forged document bore the purported seal and signature of the Presiding Officer.

6.1. More so, the petitioner has chosen to not come to this Court with clean hands, insomuch as in the petition in hand, it has been described that as per instructions of the clients/pairoker, there is no other case pending against the petitioner and exact/ correct details can be provided by the prosecution, but even this sketchy/ evasive averment is missing in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the petition. It is noticeable herein that the petition in hand is not one for grant of regular bail, wherein, the petitioner is in custody/ jail, but his plea is for grant of anticipatory bail. This aspect assumes more significance since the petitioner (herein) has pleaded himself to be an advocate.

6.2. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR.

#7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon 2026 39294----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----39294 20262026 39294 39294 5555 with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation, as also the deeper and wider impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and the preliminary investigation appears to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective