CRM-M-36741- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (110) RAJESH CHONA AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA AND CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Mr. SPS Aulakh, Advocate, Ms. Prachi Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Yajur Mojo, Mr. Apoorv Garg, A Mr. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2 **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. The Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of anticipatory 11.06.2026 registered under Sections 115, 121(1), 126, 132, 190, 191(3), 221 and 304 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (f Naraingarh, District Ambala. 2. Brief facts as emanating from the record are that the complainant Harshwardhan Joshi had been appointed as an Additional Special Receiver by High Court of Judicature at Bombay in a proceedi intellectual property litigation instituted by Hindustan Unilever Private Limited -2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RAJESH CHONA AND ANOTHER Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. SPS Aulakh, Advocate, Ms. Prachi Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Yajur Mojo, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Apoorv Garg, Addl. AG, Haryana Mr. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2 **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been preferred of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No. 11.06.2026 registered under Sections 115, 121(1), 126, 132, 190, 191(3), 221 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) Naraingarh, District Ambala. Brief facts as emanating from the record are that the complainant Harshwardhan Joshi had been appointed as an Additional Special Receiver by High Court of Judicature at Bombay in a proceedi intellectual property litigation instituted by Hindustan Unilever Private Limited IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36741-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 09.07.2026 ... Petitioners ...Respondents HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Advocate for the petitioners AG, Haryana Mr. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2 preferred by the petitioner under of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) in case arising out of FIR No.0214 dated 11.06.2026 registered under Sections 115, 121(1), 126, 132, 190, 191(3), 221 or short “BNS”) at Police Station Brief facts as emanating from the record are that the complainant- Harshwardhan Joshi had been appointed as an Additional Special Receiver by High Court of Judicature at Bombay in a proceeding arising out of a commercial intellectual property litigation instituted by Hindustan Unilever Private Limited (O&M) 2026 under of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) 0214 dated 11.06.2026 registered under Sections 115, 121(1), 126, 132, 190, 191(3), 221 at Police Station - Harshwardhan Joshi had been appointed as an Additional Special Receiver by ng arising out of a commercial intellectual property litigation instituted by Hindustan Unilever Private Limited AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-36741- Company (hereinafter referred as “Company”) regarding manufacture and sale of counterfeit products. An order was pass to comply with the directions issued in that order, the complainant alongwith representatives of Company and some other members of the execution team had visited the factory/godown situated at Village Naduwala, Ambala Cantt area. The local police had already been informed and police assistance was sought which was not provided by the local police. On reaching at the spot, a mob was found present therein. The complainant and his companions were manhandled and were physically assaulted. The cell Company and complainant were snatched by the members of the mob. Some counterfeit material in the name of the Company was identified and seized but the members of the mob forcibly took back the same from the complainant an his companions. Out of fear, the complainant and the persons him left the spot. T vehicles, thereby causing threat to their lives and security. This happened despite the presence of a local Superintendent of Police but no help was provided. By alleging that he had been physically assaulted, obstruction was caused in execution of the orders passed by High Court of Bombay and that the their mobile phones and criminally intimidated them besides removing the counterfeit seized material, he prayed for taking action in the matter. complainant also submitted a report before the High Court of Bombay in whi the names of the present petitioners -2026 (O&M) 2 Company (hereinafter referred as “Company”) regarding manufacture and sale of counterfeit products. An order was passed by the High Court of B o comply with the directions issued in that order, the complainant alongwith representatives of Company and some other members of the execution team had visited the factory/godown situated at Village Naduwala, Ambala Cantt area. e had already been informed and police assistance was sought which was not provided by the local police. On reaching at the spot, a mob was found present therein. The complainant and his companions were manhandled and were physically assaulted. The cellphones of representatives of the Company and complainant were snatched by the members of the mob. Some counterfeit material in the name of the Company was identified and seized but embers of the mob forcibly took back the same from the complainant an his companions. Out of fear, the complainant and the persons him left the spot. They were followed and intimidated by the mobsters in 02 vehicles, thereby causing threat to their lives and security. This happened despite the presence of a police official. The complainant also informed the local Superintendent of Police but no help was provided. By alleging that he had been physically assaulted, obstruction was caused in execution of the orders passed by High Court of Bombay and that the members of the mob had snatched their mobile phones and criminally intimidated them besides removing the counterfeit seized material, he prayed for taking action in the matter. complainant also submitted a report before the High Court of Bombay in whi the names of the present petitioners, apart from some more persons were Company (hereinafter referred as “Company”) regarding manufacture and sale ed by the High Court of Bombay and o comply with the directions issued in that order, the complainant alongwith representatives of Company and some other members of the execution team had visited the factory/godown situated at Village Naduwala, Ambala Cantt area. e had already been informed and police assistance was sought which was not provided by the local police. On reaching at the spot, a mob was found present therein. The complainant and his companions were manhandled phones of representatives of the Company and complainant were snatched by the members of the mob. Some counterfeit material in the name of the Company was identified and seized but embers of the mob forcibly took back the same from the complainant and his companions. Out of fear, the complainant and the persons accompanying hey were followed and intimidated by the mobsters in 02 vehicles, thereby causing threat to their lives and security. This happened police official. The complainant also informed the local Superintendent of Police but no help was provided. By alleging that he had been physically assaulted, obstruction was caused in execution of the orders members of the mob had snatched their mobile phones and criminally intimidated them besides removing the counterfeit seized material, he prayed for taking action in the matter. The complainant also submitted a report before the High Court of Bombay in which apart from some more persons were Company (hereinafter referred as “Company”) regarding manufacture and sale ombay and o comply with the directions issued in that order, the complainant alongwith representatives of Company and some other members of the execution team had visited the factory/godown situated at Village Naduwala, Ambala Cantt area. e had already been informed and police assistance was sought which was not provided by the local police. On reaching at the spot, a mob was found present therein. The complainant and his companions were manhandled phones of representatives of the Company and complainant were snatched by the members of the mob. Some counterfeit material in the name of the Company was identified and seized but d accompanying hey were followed and intimidated by the mobsters in 02 vehicles, thereby causing threat to their lives and security. This happened police official. The complainant also informed the local Superintendent of Police but no help was provided. By alleging that he had been physically assaulted, obstruction was caused in execution of the orders members of the mob had snatched their mobile phones and criminally intimidated them besides removing the The ch apart from some more persons were AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-36741- mentioned as the persons who had assaulted him and the officials of the Company as well as other members of the team accompanying the complainant. 3. After registration of FIR, inv and are underway. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala vide order dated 20.0 4. It is argued by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The complainant was not a public servant and, therefore, the ingredients for commission of offences punishable under Sections 132 an complainant was merely a Commissioner appointed by the Court. One of the petitioner owned the vehicle alleged used at the time of occurrence and has been implicated as an accused only on account of investigation. Their custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from them. The petitioners were not at all aware about passing of any order passed by the High Court of Bombay nor they were complainant. It is, thus argued, that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Notice of motion. 6. Memo of appearance on behalf of the complainant which is taken on record. Learned State counsel has advance notice petition and is ready to argue the matter. It is argued by learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant that the allegations against the -2026 (O&M) 3 mentioned as the persons who had assaulted him and the officials of the Company as well as other members of the team accompanying the complainant. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated and are underway. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala vide order dated 20.0 It is argued by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The complainant was not a public servant and, therefore, the ingredients for commission of offences punishable under Sections 132 and 221 of BNS are not at all attracted in this case. The complainant was merely a Commissioner appointed by the Court. One of the petitioner owned the vehicle alleged used at the time of occurrence and has been implicated as an accused only on account of that reason. They are ready to join investigation. Their custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from them. The petitioners were not at all aware about passing of any order passed by the High Court of Bombay nor they were It is, thus argued, that the petition deserves to be allowed. Notice of motion. Memo of appearance on behalf of the complainant which is taken on record. Learned State counsel has advance notice petition and is ready to argue the matter. It is argued by learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant that the allegations against the mentioned as the persons who had assaulted him and the officials of the Company as well as other members of the team accompanying the complainant. estigation proceedings were initiated and are underway. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala vide order dated 20.06.2026. It is argued by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The complainant was not a public servant and, therefore, the ingredients for commission of offences punishable d 221 of BNS are not at all attracted in this case. The complainant was merely a Commissioner appointed by the Court. One of the petitioner owned the vehicle alleged used at the time of occurrence and has been that reason. They are ready to join investigation. Their custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from them. The petitioners were not at all aware about passing of any order passed by the High Court of Bombay nor they were shown the same by the It is, thus argued, that the petition deserves to be allowed. Memo of appearance on behalf of the complainant has been filed, which is taken on record. Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter. It is argued by learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant that the allegations against the mentioned as the persons who had assaulted him and the officials of the estigation proceedings were initiated and are underway. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court It is argued by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The complainant was not a public servant and, therefore, the ingredients for commission of offences punishable d 221 of BNS are not at all attracted in this case. The complainant was merely a Commissioner appointed by the Court. One of the petitioner owned the vehicle alleged used at the time of occurrence and has been that reason. They are ready to join investigation. Their custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from them. The petitioners were not at all aware about passing of any shown the same by the has been filed, of the petition and is ready to argue the matter. It is argued by learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant that the allegations against the AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-36741- petitioners are serious in nature. They were named in the FIR and were active participants in causing obstruction or execution of a judicial order passed by the High Court of Bombay. The counterfeited products of Company which was being taken into custody by the complainant had their accomplices and recover its nascent stage. The roles of the co purpose of conducting proper investigation, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is must. There is no extra benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 7. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at consider 8. The petitioners alongwith the co obstruction in performing the duty assigned to the complainant in pursuance of an order passed by the High Court of Bombay in a civil litigation initiated on account of Company making alle others. The contention that the complainant was not a public servant cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that it is very much clear from the order passed by High Court of Judicature at Bombay, thereby appo that he was assigned the duty as an officer of the Court and, therefore, fall within the definition of public servant for that purpose. The allegations against the petitioners are serious and specific in nature. For eliciting the manner in which the subject offences have been committed by them, their -2026 (O&M) 4 petitioners are serious in nature. They were named in the FIR and were active ipants in causing obstruction or execution of a judicial order passed by the High Court of Bombay. The counterfeited products of Company which was o custody by the complainant had their accomplices and recovery of the same is yet to be effected. The case is at its nascent stage. The roles of the co-accused are to be unearthed. For the purpose of conducting proper investigation, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is must. There is no extra-ordinary or sparing circumstance to extend arrest bail to the petitioners. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. The petitioners alongwith the co-accused are alleged to have caused obstruction in performing the duty assigned to the complainant in pursuance of an order passed by the High Court of Bombay in a civil litigation initiated on account of Company making allegation of its products being counterfeited by others. The contention that the complainant was not a public servant cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that it is very much clear from the order passed by High Court of Judicature at Bombay, thereby appo that he was assigned the duty as an officer of the Court and, therefore, fall within the definition of public servant for that purpose. The allegations against the petitioners are serious and specific in nature. For eliciting the manner in which the subject offences have been committed by them, their petitioners are serious in nature. They were named in the FIR and were active ipants in causing obstruction or execution of a judicial order passed by the High Court of Bombay. The counterfeited products of Company which was also been snatched by them and y of the same is yet to be effected. The case is at accused are to be unearthed. For the purpose of conducting proper investigation, custodial interrogation of the r sparing circumstance to extend arrest bail to the petitioners. It is, therefore, stressed that the This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel accused are alleged to have caused obstruction in performing the duty assigned to the complainant in pursuance of an order passed by the High Court of Bombay in a civil litigation initiated on gation of its products being counterfeited by others. The contention that the complainant was not a public servant cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that it is very much clear from the order passed by High Court of Judicature at Bombay, thereby appointing him as a Commissioner that he was assigned the duty as an officer of the Court and, therefore, fall within the definition of public servant for that purpose. The allegations against the petitioners are serious and specific in nature. For eliciting information about the manner in which the subject offences have been committed by them, their petitioners are serious in nature. They were named in the FIR and were active ipants in causing obstruction or execution of a judicial order passed by the High Court of Bombay. The counterfeited products of Company which was also been snatched by them and y of the same is yet to be effected. The case is at accused are to be unearthed. For the purpose of conducting proper investigation, custodial interrogation of the r sparing circumstance to extend arrest bail to the petitioners. It is, therefore, stressed that the This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel accused are alleged to have caused obstruction in performing the duty assigned to the complainant in pursuance of an order passed by the High Court of Bombay in a civil litigation initiated on gation of its products being counterfeited by others. The contention that the complainant was not a public servant cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that it is very much clear from the order passed by inting him as a Commissioner that he was assigned the duty as an officer of the Court and, therefore, fall within the definition of public servant for that purpose. The allegations against information about the manner in which the subject offences have been committed by them, their AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-36741- custodial interrogation is required. It is well settled proposition of law that t custodial interrogation of a suspected person is qualitatively more elicitat oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order of anticipatory bail. The Court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule and has to circumstances exist to resort to that extra ordinary remedy. nascent stage. It is well settled that anticipatory bail to an accused can be granted in exceptional circumstances safety of pre-arrest bail would certainly not disclose all the facts within his knowledge. In case custodial interrogation of the petitioner is denied to the Investigating Agency, that shall leave many glaring looph adversely effecting the investigation. The Court is also required to see that an order of anticipatory bail does not operate as inroad in the normal legal procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court. It is well settled proposition law that the powers for grant of pre in extra-ordinary and exceptional circumstances. In the instant case, no such exceptional or extra as taken by the petitioner. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition allowed. Accordingly the same is dismissed. 9. It is made clear that any observation made herein above i the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. -2026 (O&M) 5 custodial interrogation is required. It is well settled proposition of law that t custodial interrogation of a suspected person is qualitatively more elicitat oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order of anticipatory bail. The Court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extra ordinary remedy. nascent stage. It is well settled that anticipatory bail to an accused can be granted in exceptional circumstances only as a person couched in comparative arrest bail would certainly not disclose all the facts within his knowledge. In case custodial interrogation of the petitioner is denied to the Investigating Agency, that shall leave many glaring looph adversely effecting the investigation. The Court is also required to see that an order of anticipatory bail does not operate as inroad in the normal legal procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court. It is well settled proposition law that the powers for grant of pre-arrest bail are to be exercised by the Court ordinary and exceptional circumstances. In the instant case, no such exceptional or extra-ordinary circumstance is, however, made out from the pleas the petitioner. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition Accordingly the same is dismissed. It is made clear that any observation made herein above i the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. custodial interrogation is required. It is well settled proposition of law that the custodial interrogation of a suspected person is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order of anticipatory bail. The Court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extra ordinary remedy. The case is at its nascent stage. It is well settled that anticipatory bail to an accused can be only as a person couched in comparative arrest bail would certainly not disclose all the facts within his knowledge. In case custodial interrogation of the petitioner is denied to the Investigating Agency, that shall leave many glaring loopholes and gaps, thereby adversely effecting the investigation. The Court is also required to see that an order of anticipatory bail does not operate as inroad in the normal legal procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court. It is well settled proposition of arrest bail are to be exercised by the Court ordinary and exceptional circumstances. In the instant case, no such ordinary circumstance is, however, made out from the pleas the petitioner. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing he ion oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order of anticipatory bail. The Court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional The case is at its nascent stage. It is well settled that anticipatory bail to an accused can be only as a person couched in comparative arrest bail would certainly not disclose all the facts within his knowledge. In case custodial interrogation of the petitioner is denied to the oles and gaps, thereby adversely effecting the investigation. The Court is also required to see that an order of anticipatory bail does not operate as inroad in the normal legal of arrest bail are to be exercised by the Court ordinary and exceptional circumstances. In the instant case, no such ordinary circumstance is, however, made out from the pleas the petitioner. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, does not deserve to be s only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-36741- 10. Since the main petition has been any, is rendered infructuous. 09.07.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 6 Since the main petition has been dismissed any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No dismissed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No , pending application, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.