CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----39294 39294 39294 39294 116 116 116 116 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Pushpender Kumar State of Haryana Date of Date of Date of Date of Decision: Decision: Decision: Decision: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present Present Present Present: SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 438 of the Cr. petitioner, in case bearing FIR No. offences punishable under Sections Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 District Palwa 2. alleged that on 22.06.2026, Secretariat, Hodal, under Sections 279, 283 and 304A IPC at Police Station Hodal, 39294 39294 39294 39294----2026 2026 2026 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----39294 39294 39294 39294----2026 2026 2026 2026 Pushpender Kumar versus Haryana Decision: Decision: Decision: Decision: July 20 July 20 July 20 July 20, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: July July July July 21 21 21 21, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Partap Singh, Advocate, Mr. Manav Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Vikas, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana. ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) Section 438 of the Cr. P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the in case bearing FIR No.238 dated offences punishable under Sections 305, 331(3), 338, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) District Palwal, Haryana. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that on 22.06.2026, while inspecting the parked vehicles near the Mini Secretariat, Hodal, he found that in an FIR No. under Sections 279, 283 and 304A IPC at Police Station Hodal, 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH 2026 2026 2026 2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Manav Sharma, Advocate and the petitioner. Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana. filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail to the dated 22.06.2026, registered for the 305, 331(3), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the (for short ‘BNS’), at Police Station Hodal, The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the complainant while inspecting the parked vehicles near the Mini FIR No.62 dated 09.02.2016, registered under Sections 279, 283 and 304A IPC at Police Station Hodal, a truck bearing 1111 ....Petitioner ....Respondent filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail to the registered for the 336(3) and 340(2) of the Hodal, the complainant while inspecting the parked vehicles near the Mini .02.2016, registered truck bearing MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.21 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----39294 39294 39294 39294----2026 2026 2026 2026 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.21 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----39294 39294 39294 39294----2026 2026 2026 2026 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.21 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----39294 39294 39294 39294----2026 2026 2026 2026 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.21 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----39294 39294 39294 39294----2026 2026 2026 2026 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 investigation. In State State State State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] 1039] 1039] 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) ““““6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well- ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third- degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.”””” 8. In view of the seriousness of allegations and the role attributed to the petitioner, this Court finds no compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the petitioner. Granting bail, at this stage, would not only undermine the administration of justice but may also embolden the accused. 9. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, the investigation is still underway and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is being sought for effective MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.21 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----39294 39294 39294 39294----2026 2026 2026 2026 6666 investigation, to unearth the prosecution case and to investigate the manner in which the forgery committed as well as other persons involved in the whole process. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed dismissed dismissed dismissed. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE July 20 July 20 July 20 July 20, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.21 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment