CRM-M-26695 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 115 KRISHAN KUMAR 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 29.10.2024 420, 467, 468, 471 District Sirsa 2. Reader, posted in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Sirsa hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ 26695-2026 (O&M) 8587 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM DATE OF DECISION KRISHAN KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Paramjit Singh Jammu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. 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. 29.10.2024, for the commission of of 420, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code District Sirsa. The abovementioned FIR came into being Reader, posted in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Sirsa hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-26695-2026 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 12.05.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH Advocate 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.500 , for the commission of offence punishable under Section Indian Penal Code, Police Station Civil Lines Sirsa FIR came into being on the complaint of Reader, posted in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Sirsa hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was informed by the .2026 .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 500 fence punishable under Sections Civil Lines Sirsa, on the complaint of Reader, posted in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Sirsa, It was informed by the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.13 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26695 complainant that in a case arising out of FIR No.810 dated under Section 22 Krishan Kumar (the petitioner herein) was in custody, and that on 18.05.2022 abovementioned order, fake surety bonds were furnished in the name of ‘Sonu’. It was also reported that pursuant to furnishing the abovementioned bonds, the petitioner was released, but later on an application b Devi’ and ‘Santro Devi’, it was revealed that the documents attached with the bonds were fake. 3. abovementioned investigation taken up. 4. 5. behalf of respondent dispensed with. learned State Counsel has orally oppose 6. 7. the petitioner is innocent custody and not present in the Court. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the person, who was responsible for filing of forged bail bonds in the Court, has already been 26695-2026 (O&M) 8587 complainant that in a case arising out of FIR No.810 dated under Section 22-B of NDPS Act, Police Station City Sirsa Krishan Kumar (the petitioner herein) was in custody, and that on 18.05.2022, he was accorded the benefit of bail and pursuant to abovementioned order, fake surety bonds were furnished in the name of . It was also reported that pursuant to furnishing the abovementioned bonds, the petitioner was released, but later on an application b Devi’ and ‘Santro Devi’, it was revealed that the documents attached with the bonds were fake. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case investigation taken up. Notice of motion. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. No formal reply has been filed by the State learned State Counsel has orally opposed Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the the petitioner is innocent, as at the time of commission of offence, he was in custody and not present in the Court. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the person, who was responsible for filing of forged bail bonds in the Court, has already been 2 complainant that in a case arising out of FIR No.810 dated 03.12.2019, B of NDPS Act, Police Station City Sirsa, the accused Krishan Kumar (the petitioner herein) was in custody, and that on accorded the benefit of bail and pursuant to abovementioned order, fake surety bonds were furnished in the name of . It was also reported that pursuant to furnishing the abovementioned bonds, the petitioner was released, but later on an application by ‘Krishna Devi’ and ‘Santro Devi’, it was revealed that the documents attached with It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to formal FIR of this case has been lodged and the Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana appears on State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby o formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the present petition. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that , as at the time of commission of offence, he was in custody and not present in the Court. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the person, who was responsible for filing of forged bail bonds in the Court, has already been arrested, and that the entire 03.12.2019, , the accused Krishan Kumar (the petitioner herein) was in custody, and that on accorded the benefit of bail and pursuant to abovementioned order, fake surety bonds were furnished in the name of . It was also reported that pursuant to furnishing the abovementioned ‘Krishna Devi’ and ‘Santro Devi’, it was revealed that the documents attached with It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to lodged and the appears on State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby the petitioner that , as at the time of commission of offence, he was in custody and not present in the Court. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the person, who was responsible for filing of arrested, and that the entire GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.13 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26695 evidence, therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. 8. abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, allegations Court, and that the petitioner being beneficiary of the fraudulent ac shy away from the responsibility of abovementioned offence. 9. 10. here that in the Court, which to seven years. The petitioner, being beneficiary of the fraudulent act, bound to fix his respons is required. 11. settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect exercising power for grant of anticipatory as a matter of granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for the extraordinary remedy. 26695-2026 (O&M) 8587 evidence, has already been collected by the Investigating Agency and therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, allegations in the present case are with regard to playing fraud with the , and that the petitioner being beneficiary of the fraudulent ac shy away from the responsibility of abovementioned offence. The record has been perused carefully. In the present case, at the very outset it is here that the allegations against the petitioner are for furnishing f in the Court, which is heinous offence, and punishable with imprisonment up seven years. The petitioner, being beneficiary of the fraudulent act, take the responsibility of abovementioned offence and in order to fix his responsibility in the commission of crime, his custodial interrogation is required. 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 as a matter of routine. Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for the extraordinary remedy. 3 has already been collected by the Investigating Agency and therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, in the present case are with regard to playing fraud with the , and that the petitioner being beneficiary of the fraudulent act, cannot shy away from the responsibility of abovementioned offence. The record has been perused carefully. In the present case, at the very outset it is pertinent to mention the allegations against the petitioner are for furnishing fake bonds and punishable with imprisonment up seven years. The petitioner, being beneficiary of the fraudulent act, responsibility of abovementioned offence and in order to ibility in the commission of crime, his custodial interrogation As far as the benefit 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 . Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances has already been collected by the Investigating Agency and The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, the in the present case are with regard to playing fraud with the t, cannot to mention ake bonds and punishable with imprisonment up seven years. The petitioner, being beneficiary of the fraudulent act, is responsibility of abovementioned offence and in order to ibility in the commission of crime, his custodial interrogation As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is while bail and it should not be granted . Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.13 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26695 12. 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 rule. 13. case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion 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 l justice and may hamper the investigation. 14. Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 2 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. 15. 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that: 26695-2026 (O&M) 8587 With regard to above, the Hon'ble 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 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 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 l 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 2 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 aordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. 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: 4 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of 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 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 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 aordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. 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:- Supreme Court of 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 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 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 ead to miscarriage of Similarly, in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave 1.07.2024), 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 In the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.13 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26695 16. interrogation present case, to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation proper headway requisite evidence. 17. the relevant laws, it the extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner benefit of pre being devoid of merits accordingly 26695-2026 (O&M) 8587 (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) 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 exercised. It shall not be out of place to mention here that custodial interrogation is a valuable right of the present case, if such right is denied to the Investigating Agency to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation proper headway and the Investigating Agency requisite evidence. Considering the above-discussed facts and circumstances and the relevant laws, it is hereby observed that the extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner benefit of pre-arrest bail. Thus, it is hereby held devoid of merits deserves dismissal accordingly. 5 The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of traordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in 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. re 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 Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be t shall not be out of place to mention here that custodial the Investigating Agency, and in the ied to the Investigating Agency, it is likely to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation may not take a and the Investigating Agency may not be able to collect the discussed facts and circumstances and observed that no ground exists for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner, by according the hereby held that the present petition dismissal. The same is hereby dismissed The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of traordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the re 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 Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be t shall not be out of place to mention here that custodial and in the it is likely may not take a may not be able to collect the discussed facts and circumstances and no ground exists for invoking by according the petition dismissed, GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.13 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26695 18. shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the me 19. application 12.05.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 26695-2026 (O&M) 8587 It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the me Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous. .2026 (SURYA PA Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 6 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 :Yes/No Yes/No It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove rits of the case. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.13 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document