CRM-M-37129 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 218 AMIT RAI STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present : SURYA P complainant have 2. 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. 01.01.2026 37129-2026(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM DATE OF DECISION AMIT RAI VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Sube S. Kaushik, Advocate Ms. Deepali Verma, Asst. A.G. Haryana assisted by P/SI Sanjay EOW Mr. Sant Saran V. and Mr. Rahul Saini for the complainant. SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. The learned State Counsel complainant have filed their respective repl 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. .2026, for the commission of of 8587 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37129-2026(O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 21.07.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Deepali Verma, Asst. A.G. Haryana assisted by P/SI Sanjay EOW-I, Gurugram. Sant Saran V. and Mr. Rahul Saini, Advocates The learned State Counsel and learned counsel for the their respective replies. The same be taken on record. 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.02 dated , for the commission of offence punishable under Section .2026 .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT and learned counsel for the . The same be taken on record. filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, dated fence punishable under Sections GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.22 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37129 318(4), 336(3), 338, 3 hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNS’ 3. ‘Mr. Ashok Kumar, Managing Director, RAH Infotech Pvt. Ltd.’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was alleged by the complainant that the representative of ‘Goel Group’, through representative of complainant, had approached the complainant for supply of semiconductor and solar panel components. The ‘Goel Group’ represented that the material was urgently required and assured to make the payment of price of abovementioned g represented that the material would be procured from ‘GH2 Solar Ltd.’, as the abovementioned Company only, used to work on ‘Letter of Credit’ (LC). It was also represented that the companies of ‘Goel Group’ w issue ‘Letter of Credit’ due to financial constraints, and ensured timely payment of money to the complainant. 4. representation, purchase orders were placed with the complainant by the Company of ‘Goel Group’, namely ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’ and ‘M/s Goel Lightings’, both entities c Goel’. In furtherance of abovementioned inducement, the representatives of ‘Goel Group’ personally visited the complainant’ finalized the deal. According to complainant, during such meetings, the representatives of ‘Goel Group’ projected that they were established 37129-2026(O&M) 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNS’, Police Station The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Mr. Ashok Kumar, Managing Director, RAH Infotech Pvt. Ltd.’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was alleged by the complainant that the representative of ‘Goel Group’, through representative of complainant, had approached the complainant for supply of semiconductor and solar panel components. The ‘Goel Group’ represented that the material was urgently required and assured to make the payment of price of abovementioned goods within a period of 90 days. It was further represented that the material would be procured from ‘GH2 Solar Ltd.’, as the abovementioned Company only, used to work on ‘Letter of Credit’ (LC). It was also represented that the companies of ‘Goel Group’ w issue ‘Letter of Credit’ due to financial constraints, and ensured timely payment of money to the complainant. As per complainant, based upon the abovementioned representation, purchase orders were placed with the complainant by the any of ‘Goel Group’, namely ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’ and ‘M/s Goel Lightings’, both entities c . In furtherance of abovementioned inducement, the representatives of ‘Goel Group’ personally visited the complainant’ finalized the deal. According to complainant, during such meetings, the representatives of ‘Goel Group’ projected that they were established 8587 2 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, , Police Station Sector-50, Gurugram. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Mr. Ashok Kumar, Managing Director, RAH Infotech Pvt. Ltd.’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was alleged by the complainant that the representative of ‘Goel Group’, through the sale representative of complainant, had approached the complainant for supply of semiconductor and solar panel components. The ‘Goel Group’ represented that the material was urgently required and assured to make the payment of oods within a period of 90 days. It was further represented that the material would be procured from ‘GH2 Solar Ltd.’, as the abovementioned Company only, used to work on ‘Letter of Credit’ (LC). It was also represented that the companies of ‘Goel Group’ were unable to issue ‘Letter of Credit’ due to financial constraints, and ensured timely As per complainant, based upon the abovementioned representation, purchase orders were placed with the complainant by the any of ‘Goel Group’, namely ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’ and ‘M/s Goel Lightings’, both entities controlled by ‘Mr. Rakesh . In furtherance of abovementioned inducement, the representatives of ‘Goel Group’ personally visited the complainant’s Gurugram Office and finalized the deal. According to complainant, during such meetings, the representatives of ‘Goel Group’ projected that they were established Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Gurugram. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Mr. Ashok Kumar, Managing Director, RAH Infotech Pvt. Ltd.’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was alleged by the the sale representative of complainant, had approached the complainant for supply of semiconductor and solar panel components. The ‘Goel Group’ represented that the material was urgently required and assured to make the payment of oods within a period of 90 days. It was further represented that the material would be procured from ‘GH2 Solar Ltd.’, as the abovementioned Company only, used to work on ‘Letter of Credit’ (LC). ere unable to issue ‘Letter of Credit’ due to financial constraints, and ensured timely As per complainant, based upon the abovementioned representation, purchase orders were placed with the complainant by the any of ‘Goel Group’, namely ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. ontrolled by ‘Mr. Rakesh . In furtherance of abovementioned inducement, the representatives of s Gurugram Office and finalized the deal. According to complainant, during such meetings, the representatives of ‘Goel Group’ projected that they were established GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.22 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37129 OEM/manufacturers with 20 years of experience and financially sound, but later on, the abovem 5. physical material would be supplied and delivered in ordinary course of business, however, upon detailed verification it had been conclusively established that no physical shipment of material had ever taken place, and that ‘GH2 Solar Ltd.’ never delivered any goods to ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’. It was further revealed that ‘GH2 Solar Ltd.’ raised its material invoices with ‘Bill To’ as ‘RAH the corresponding ‘Ship To’ as ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’ (the Goel controlled entities), but actual transactions of goods never took place. As per complainant, by preparing the documents in the abovementioned fashion, financial intermediary, whereas there was no physical receipt/delivery/ movement of goods at the end of entities of Goel Group. 6. been revea Goel-controlled entities, beginning from ‘VG Electronics Ltd.’, a company controlled by ‘Gaurav acted in active connivance and conspirac complainant, although the delivery bills were produced to show movement of goods, but on independent verification of details by the complainant, it was found that the bills of transporter were forged and fabricated, because the transporters, named in 37129-2026(O&M) OEM/manufacturers with 20 years of experience and financially sound, but later on, the abovementioned claims were found to be false. According to complainant, it was expressly represented that physical material would be supplied and delivered in ordinary course of business, however, upon detailed verification it had been conclusively hed that no physical shipment of material had ever taken place, and that ‘GH2 Solar Ltd.’ never delivered any goods to ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’. It was further revealed that ‘GH2 Solar Ltd.’ raised its material invoices with ‘Bill To’ as ‘RAH the corresponding ‘Ship To’ as ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’ (the Goel controlled entities), but actual transactions of goods never took place. As per complainant, by preparing the documents in the abovementioned fashion, the complainant was deliberately positioned as a financial intermediary, whereas there was no physical receipt/delivery/ movement of goods at the end of entities of Goel Group. The complainant further alleged that on deeper scrutiny, it had been revealed that the entire transaction was originated and pre controlled entities, beginning from ‘VG Electronics Ltd.’, a company controlled by ‘Gaurav Goel’ S/o ‘Rakesh Goel’ acted in active connivance and conspirac complainant, although the delivery-challans, transporter bills were produced to show movement of goods, but on independent verification of details by the complainant, it was found that the bills of er were forged and fabricated, because the transporters, named in 8587 3 OEM/manufacturers with 20 years of experience and financially sound, but entioned claims were found to be false. According to complainant, it was expressly represented that physical material would be supplied and delivered in ordinary course of business, however, upon detailed verification it had been conclusively hed that no physical shipment of material had ever taken place, and that ‘GH2 Solar Ltd.’ never delivered any goods to ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’. It was further revealed that ‘GH2 Solar Ltd.’ raised its material invoices with ‘Bill To’ as ‘RAH Infotech Pvt. Ltd.’ and the corresponding ‘Ship To’ as ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’ (the Goel controlled entities), but actual transactions of goods never took place. As per complainant, by preparing the documents in the the complainant was deliberately positioned as a financial intermediary, whereas there was no physical receipt/delivery/ movement of goods at the end of entities of Goel Group. The complainant further alleged that on deeper scrutiny, it had led that the entire transaction was originated and pre-structured by controlled entities, beginning from ‘VG Electronics Ltd.’, a company Goel’ S/o ‘Rakesh Goel’, and that ‘GH2 Solar Ltd.’ acted in active connivance and conspiracy with the ‘Goel Group’. As per challans, transporter-bills, and e-way bills were produced to show movement of goods, but on independent verification of details by the complainant, it was found that the bills of er were forged and fabricated, because the transporters, named in OEM/manufacturers with 20 years of experience and financially sound, but According to complainant, it was expressly represented that physical material would be supplied and delivered in ordinary course of business, however, upon detailed verification it had been conclusively hed that no physical shipment of material had ever taken place, and that ‘GH2 Solar Ltd.’ never delivered any goods to ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’. It was further revealed that ‘GH2 Solar Ltd.’ Infotech Pvt. Ltd.’ and the corresponding ‘Ship To’ as ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’ (the Goel controlled entities), but actual transactions of goods never took place. As per complainant, by preparing the documents in the the complainant was deliberately positioned as a financial intermediary, whereas there was no physical receipt/delivery/ The complainant further alleged that on deeper scrutiny, it had structured by controlled entities, beginning from ‘VG Electronics Ltd.’, a company , and that ‘GH2 Solar Ltd.’ y with the ‘Goel Group’. As per way bills were produced to show movement of goods, but on independent verification of details by the complainant, it was found that the bills of er were forged and fabricated, because the transporters, named in GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.22 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37129 the documents, either denied having transported any such material, or did not possess any corresponding record. 7. representation, Ltd.’ through a 90 of their liability, ‘M/s Goel Lightings’, issued cheques amounting to Rs.30.25 crores (approx.) in favour of complaina funds in the relevant account were insufficient, and therefore, on the presentation of cheques, the banker of ‘M/s Goel Lightings’ refused to honour the same. The complainant further alleged that initially ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturin post-dated cheques dated 15.01.2026, 16.01.2026, 17.01.2026 and 18.01.2026 were issued amounting to Rs.26,96,46,912/ allegation of the complainant that upon verification, it was fou account of ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’, the abovementioned money was not available. 8. complainant that right from the very beginning, with an intention to cheat the complainant, a web was designed by the Companies of ‘Goel Group’ and false documents were created to earn trust of complainant, by adopting the abovementioned tune of Rs.55.55 crores (approx.) had been caused to the complainant. 37129-2026(O&M) the documents, either denied having transported any such material, or did not possess any corresponding record. According to complainant, relying upon the abovementioned representation, ‘RAH Infotech Pvt. Ltd.’ paid Rs.55.55 crores to ‘GH2 Solar Ltd.’ through a 90-day ‘Letter of Credit’ and that towards partial discharge of their liability, ‘M/s Goel Lightings’, issued cheques amounting to Rs.30.25 crores (approx.) in favour of complaina funds in the relevant account were insufficient, and therefore, on the presentation of cheques, the banker of ‘M/s Goel Lightings’ refused to honour the same. The complainant further alleged that initially ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’ had not issued any cheques, but subsequently dated cheques dated 15.01.2026, 16.01.2026, 17.01.2026 and 18.01.2026 were issued amounting to Rs.26,96,46,912/ allegation of the complainant that upon verification, it was fou account of ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’, the abovementioned money was not available. In view of abovementioned facts, it had been allegedly by the complainant that right from the very beginning, with an intention to cheat the complainant, a web was designed by the Companies of ‘Goel Group’ and false documents were created to earn trust of complainant, by adopting the abovementioned tune of Rs.55.55 crores (approx.) had been caused to the complainant. 8587 4 the documents, either denied having transported any such material, or did According to complainant, relying upon the abovementioned ‘RAH Infotech Pvt. Ltd.’ paid Rs.55.55 crores to ‘GH2 Solar day ‘Letter of Credit’ and that towards partial discharge of their liability, ‘M/s Goel Lightings’, issued cheques amounting to Rs.30.25 crores (approx.) in favour of complainant. As per complainant, the funds in the relevant account were insufficient, and therefore, on the presentation of cheques, the banker of ‘M/s Goel Lightings’ refused to honour the same. The complainant further alleged that initially ‘HQ Lamps g Co. Pvt. Ltd.’ had not issued any cheques, but subsequently dated cheques dated 15.01.2026, 16.01.2026, 17.01.2026 and 18.01.2026 were issued amounting to Rs.26,96,46,912/-. It was the allegation of the complainant that upon verification, it was found that in the account of ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’, the abovementioned In view of abovementioned facts, it had been allegedly by the complainant that right from the very beginning, with an intention to cheat the complainant, a web was designed by the Companies of ‘Goel Group’ and false documents were created to earn trust of the complainant. As per complainant, by adopting the abovementioned modus operandi, a loss to the tune of Rs.55.55 crores (approx.) had been caused to the complainant. the documents, either denied having transported any such material, or did According to complainant, relying upon the abovementioned ‘RAH Infotech Pvt. Ltd.’ paid Rs.55.55 crores to ‘GH2 Solar day ‘Letter of Credit’ and that towards partial discharge of their liability, ‘M/s Goel Lightings’, issued cheques amounting to nt. As per complainant, the funds in the relevant account were insufficient, and therefore, on the presentation of cheques, the banker of ‘M/s Goel Lightings’ refused to honour the same. The complainant further alleged that initially ‘HQ Lamps g Co. Pvt. Ltd.’ had not issued any cheques, but subsequently dated cheques dated 15.01.2026, 16.01.2026, 17.01.2026 and . It was the nd that in the account of ‘HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.’, the abovementioned In view of abovementioned facts, it had been allegedly by the complainant that right from the very beginning, with an intention to cheat the complainant, a web was designed by the Companies of ‘Goel Group’ and the complainant. As per , a loss to the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.22 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37129 9. abovementioned complaint, fo investigation taken up. 10. 11. the petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and that he has been According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was only an employee as ‘Sales Manager’ with ‘M/s RAH Infotech Pvt. Ltd.’ was introduced to the ‘Goel Group’ As per learned counsel for the petitioner role or involvement in the transactions 12. counsel for the petition ‘Rakesh Goel’, have already been accorded the benefit of bail, and that the role attributed insignificant petitioner Magistrate and by custodial interrogation of the petitioner, nothing has to be recovered. In view of above, the sought for the benefit of pre 13. for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments 37129-2026(O&M) It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of abovementioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was only an employee as ‘Sales Manager’ with ‘M/s RAH Infotech Pvt. Ltd.’ was introduced to the ‘Goel Group’, solely learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had no independent role or involvement in the transactions forming subject matter of the FIR. In addition to above, it has also been contended by counsel for the petitioner that the prime accused, namely ‘Gaurav Goel’ and ‘Rakesh Goel’, have already been accorded the benefit of bail, and that the role attributed to the petitioner in comparison to the role of co significant. It has further been contended by petitioner that otherwise also, the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate and by custodial interrogation of the petitioner, nothing has to be recovered. In view of above, the learned counsel for the petitioner ought for the benefit of pre-arrest bail for the petitioner. The learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments 8587 5 It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of rmal FIR of this case was lodged and the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was only an employee as ‘Sales Manager’ with ‘M/s RAH Infotech Pvt. Ltd.’, and that he solely in the course of his official duty. , the petitioner had no independent forming subject matter of the FIR. In addition to above, it has also been contended by learned that the prime accused, namely ‘Gaurav Goel’ and ‘Rakesh Goel’, have already been accorded the benefit of bail, and that the to the petitioner in comparison to the role of co-accused is . It has further been contended by learned counsel for the that otherwise also, the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate and by custodial interrogation of the petitioner, nothing has to be learned counsel for the petitioner arrest bail for the petitioner. The learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of rmal FIR of this case was lodged and the that the petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was only an , and that he fficial duty. , the petitioner had no independent forming subject matter of the FIR. learned that the prime accused, namely ‘Gaurav Goel’ and ‘Rakesh Goel’, have already been accorded the benefit of bail, and that the accused is learned counsel for the that otherwise also, the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate and by custodial interrogation of the petitioner, nothing has to be has The learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.22 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37129 According to learned counsel for the complainant, culprit, who had triggered the chain of events, which led to large forgery and petitioner is kickback in his bank acc family members/relatives. The further contended that in order to fix the role of petitioner in the commission of offence commission of abovementioned offence petitioner is necessary. 14. 15. settled principles of law that the exercising power matter of only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exi the extraordinary remedy. 16. 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 ir that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is a rule. 37129-2026(O&M) According to learned counsel for the complainant, , who had triggered the chain of events, which led to large forgery and cheating. As per learned counsel for the complainant petitioner is not a clean person, rather he had received huge amount as kickback in his bank account as well as in the bank account of his close family members/relatives. The learned counsel for the complainant further contended that in order to fix the role of petitioner in the commission of offence, and that to investigate the commission of abovementioned offence, petitioner is necessary. 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 to grant anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of routine. Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exi the extraordinary remedy. With regard to above, 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 that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is a rule. 8587 6 According to learned counsel for the complainant, the petitioner is the main , who had triggered the chain of events, which led to large-scale learned counsel for the complainant, the a clean person, rather he had received huge amount as ount as well as in the bank account of his close learned counsel for the complainant further contended that in order to fix the role of petitioner in the commission and that to investigate the modus operandi behind the , the custodial interrogation of the The record has been perused carefully. As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is Court must be circumspect, while grant anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a . Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for , 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, respective 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 oner is the main scale , the a clean person, rather he had received huge amount as ount as well as in the bank account of his close has further contended that in order to fix the role of petitioner in the commission hind the custodial interrogation of the As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is while grant anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a . Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be granted st for , 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, respective 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 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.22 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37129 17. case has further obser 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, interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation. 18. Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and An 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 Cour this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. 19. 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that: 37129-2026(O&M) 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, 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 An 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. 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: (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 c 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 8587 7 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned ved 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 t, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary 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:- The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary 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. 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 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned ved 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 as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of Similarly, in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita other (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 t, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of In the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the ase for the exercise of the 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 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.22 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37129 20. concerned, at the very outset it is pertinent to mention that the co the petitioner have been accorded the benefit of regular bail, whereas the petitioner has approached ground of parity, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of anticipatory bail. 21. concerned very specific allegations against the petitioner that who had induced the complainant to enter into commission of offence. In order to ascert commission of offence and also to dig case, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is of paramount importance. 22. custodial interrogation Agency, and in the present case, if such right is den Agency, circumstances Investigating Agency 23. the relevant laws, it 37129-2026(O&M) 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. As far as the facts and circumstances of the present case are concerned, at the very outset it is pertinent to mention that the co the petitioner have been accorded the benefit of regular bail, whereas the petitioner has approached this Court fo ground of parity, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of anticipatory bail. As far as the role of petitioner in the commission of offence is concerned, with regard to above it is relevant to mention here that there are very specific allegations against the petitioner that who had induced the complainant to enter into commission of offence. In order to ascert commission of offence and also to dig-out the , custodial interrogation of the petitioner is of paramount importance. It shall not be out of place to mention here that dial interrogation is a valuable right and in the present case, if such right is den the same may result into miscarriage of justice circumstances the investigation may not take a proper headway Investigating Agency may not be able to collect requisite evidence. Considering the above-discussed facts and circumstances and the relevant laws, it is hereby observed that 8587 8 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 As far as the facts and circumstances of the present case are concerned, at the very outset it is pertinent to mention that the co-accused of the petitioner have been accorded the benefit of regular bail, whereas the this Court for anticipatory bail. Thus, on the ground of parity, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of anticipatory bail. As far as the role of petitioner in the commission of offence is with regard to above it is relevant to mention here that there are very specific allegations against the petitioner that he was the first person, who had induced the complainant to enter into deal, which led to the commission of offence. In order to ascertain role of the petitioner in the out the truth involved in the instant , custodial interrogation of the petitioner is of paramount importance. t shall not be out of place to mention here that right of is a valuable right available to an Investigating and in the present case, if such right is denied to the Investigating result into miscarriage of justice. In such may not take a proper headway and the may not be able to collect requisite evidence. discussed facts and circumstances and observed that no ground exists for invoking 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 As far as the facts and circumstances of the present case are accused of the petitioner have been accorded the benefit of regular bail, whereas the r anticipatory bail. Thus, on the ground of parity, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of anticipatory bail. As far as the role of petitioner in the commission of offence is with regard to above it is relevant to mention here that there are he was the first person, deal, which led to the petitioner in the involved in the instant , custodial interrogation of the petitioner is of paramount importance. right of ting ied to the Investigating . In such and the discussed facts and circumstances and no ground exists for invoking GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.22 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37129 the extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner benefit of pre devoid of merits accordingly 24. hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 25. application 21.07.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 37129-2026(O&M) extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner benefit of pre-arrest bail. Thus, it is hereby held devoid of merits and deserves dismissal accordingly. It is, however, clarified that the observations 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 Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 8587 9 extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner, by according him it is hereby held that the present petition dismissal. The same is hereby dismissed wever, clarified that the observations recorded hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending rendered infructuous. SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE :Yes/No : Yes/No the petition is dismissed, recorded hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.22 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document