CRM-M-15711 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 118 DHEERAJ SINGH STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present : SURYA P petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. dated 21.04 319, 336(2), Station Faridabad Central 2. the fact that in a proceeding being conducted by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Faridabad, titled as ‘State V/s Rinkesh & Ors.’ surety bonds on behalf of accused Rinkesh impersonator 15711-2026 (O&M) 8587 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM DATE OF DECISION DHEERAJ SINGH VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Sahil Parmar, Advocate for Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (oral) This petition for pre-arrest bail is petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 21.04.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 319, 336(2), 336(3), 340 and 61 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Faridabad Central, District Faridabad The abovementioned FIR came into being the fact that in a proceeding being conducted by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Faridabad, titled as ‘State V/s Rinkesh & Ors.’ surety bonds on behalf of accused Rinkesh impersonator, and the petitioner identified him 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-15711-2026 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 20.03.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH for the petitioner. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana. arrest bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.111 , for the commission of offence punishable under Sections Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Faridabad. FIR came into being in the backdrop of the fact that in a proceeding being conducted by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Faridabad, titled as ‘State V/s Rinkesh & Ors.’ surety bonds on behalf of accused Rinkesh were furnished by identified him. .2026 .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 111 , for the commission of offence punishable under Sections Police in the backdrop of the fact that in a proceeding being conducted by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Faridabad, titled as ‘State V/s Rinkesh & Ors.’, were furnished by an GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15711 3. 4. on behalf of respondent hereby dispensed with. 5. 6. the petitioner the asking of his son Pankaj, he had identified the surety as ‘Naresh Kumar’. According to learned counsel for th antecedents and never indulge he had no intention to defraud the Court. 7. abovementioned arguments. petitioner being release of his son impersonator as ‘Naresh Kumar’ commission of crime. As per learned State Counsel, since fraud has been played upon 8. 9. settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted 15711-2026 (O&M) 8587 Notice of motion. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the father of the accused Pankaj the asking of his son Pankaj, he had identified the surety as ‘Naresh Kumar’. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has clean antecedents and never indulged in such kind of he had no intention to defraud the Court. The learned State Counsel abovementioned arguments. According to petitioner being the father of the accused Pankaj of his son on bail and for that purpose, he deliberately impersonator as ‘Naresh Kumar’ and thus, played an active role in the commission of crime. As per learned State Counsel, since fraud has been upon the Court, the petitioner is not entitled for any lenient view. The record has been perused carefully. As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted 2 Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appears State. Hence service of notice upon the State is It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that accused Pankaj, and that in good faith on the asking of his son Pankaj, he had identified the surety as ‘Naresh Kumar’. petitioner, the petitioner has clean in such kind of activity in the past, and that The learned State Counsel has controverted the According to learned State Counsel, father of the accused Pankaj, was interested in on bail and for that purpose, he deliberately identified an and thus, played an active role in the commission of crime. As per learned State Counsel, since fraud has been is not entitled for any lenient view. The record has been perused carefully. t of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect, while exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted appears State. Hence service of notice upon the State is It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that good faith on the asking of his son Pankaj, he had identified the surety as ‘Naresh Kumar’. petitioner, the petitioner has clean , and that has controverted the State Counsel, the was interested in the identified an and thus, played an active role in the commission of crime. As per learned State Counsel, since fraud has been t of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is while exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15711 as a matter of rule. Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for the extraordinary remedy. 10. India in the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is a rul 11. case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when ca abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation. 12. Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. 15711-2026 (O&M) 8587 as a matter of rule. Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for the extraordinary remedy. With regard to such situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is a rule. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when ca abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation. Similarly, in the case of Ni Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. 3 as a matter of rule. Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for With regard to such situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation. Similarly, in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for With regard to such situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. lled upon to exercise the abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of kita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15711 13. 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that: 14. denial of the fact that Rinkesh & Ors.’ the bail bonds of accused Pankaj identifier of the surety. The name of surety as mentioned in the bail bonds was ‘Naresh Kumar’, but ‘Naresh Kumar’ the trial Court that he had never signed any such bail bond. 15. that the instant case is a clear with the Court 15711-2026 (O&M) 8587 In the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that: (i) The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only. (ii) In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. (iii) Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the police custody under Section 167(2) ca investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be exercised. A perusal of record shows that i denial of the fact that the accused Pankaj in a case titled as ‘State V/s Rinkesh & Ors.’, is the son of the petitioner. It is also an admitted fact that the bail bonds of accused Pankaj were signed by the identifier of the surety. The name of surety as mentioned in the bail bonds was ‘Naresh Kumar’, but ‘Naresh Kumar’ the trial Court that he had never signed any such bail bond. The abovementioned facts and circumstances of the case show that the instant case is a clear-cut case, wherein the fraud has been played with the Court, and the role played by the petitioner was 4 In the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that:- The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in n to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be A perusal of record shows that in the present case, there is no the accused Pankaj in a case titled as ‘State V/s , is the son of the petitioner. It is also an admitted fact that were signed by the present petitioner as an identifier of the surety. The name of surety as mentioned in the bail bonds was ‘Naresh Kumar’, but ‘Naresh Kumar’ had moved an application before the trial Court that he had never signed any such bail bond. The abovementioned facts and circumstances of the case show cut case, wherein the fraud has been played the role played by the petitioner was a pivotal role in the etc. v. State of Punjab The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in n to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the n be made out by the investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be n the present case, there is no the accused Pankaj in a case titled as ‘State V/s , is the son of the petitioner. It is also an admitted fact that present petitioner as an identifier of the surety. The name of surety as mentioned in the bail bonds had moved an application before The abovementioned facts and circumstances of the case show cut case, wherein the fraud has been played role in the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15711 successful commission of who identified the impersonator as ‘Naresh Kumar’. 16. custodial interrogation of the present case, if such right is den likely to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation proper headway. performed impersonated himself as Naresh before the court and this fact knowledge of the petitioner. Th 7. above-discussed circumstances exist in this case, which may call for the discretion Thus, it is hereby held dismissal. Accordingly, the same is 18. shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 19. application 20.03.2026 Gaurav Thakur 15711-2026 (O&M) 8587 successful commission of abovementioned offence who identified the impersonator as ‘Naresh Kumar’. It shall not be out of place to mention here that right of al interrogation of the Investigating Agency is a valuable right the present case, if such right is denied to the Investigating Agency likely to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation proper headway. In the present case one of the important task to be performed by the investigating agency, is the identity of the person who impersonated himself as Naresh before the court and this fact knowledge of the petitioner. Thus, his custodial i If the fact-situation of instant case discussed principles of law, it transpires that circumstances exist in this case, which may call for the discretionary jurisdiction, vested in this Court it is hereby held that the present petition . Accordingly, the same is hereby It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous. .2026 (SURYA PA 5 abovementioned offence, as he was the person, who identified the impersonator as ‘Naresh Kumar’. It shall not be out of place to mention here that right of ting Agency is a valuable right, and in ied to the Investigating Agency it is likely to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation may not take a In the present case one of the important task to be agency, is the identity of the person who impersonated himself as Naresh before the court and this fact is in exclusive us, his custodial interrogation is necessary. situation of instant case is analyzed in the light of , it transpires that no such exceptional circumstances exist in this case, which may call for the exercise of this Court for grant of anticipatory bail. petition is devoid of merits deserve hereby dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending rendered infructuous. SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE as he was the person, It shall not be out of place to mention here that right of and in it is may not take a In the present case one of the important task to be agency, is the identity of the person who is in exclusive nterrogation is necessary. is analyzed in the light of no such exceptional exercise of for grant of anticipatory bail. deserves It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15711 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 15711-2026 (O&M) 8587 Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 6 :Yes/No : Yes/No GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document