CRM-M-30683- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (208) SUBITA KUMARI STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana Mr. Ravinder S. Buchwar, Advocate and Dr. Kiran Pal Singh, Advocate for the *** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. The Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of anticipatory registered under Section 308(6) of “BNS”) (Sections 308(4), 61(2) and 351(3) of BNS added later on) at Police Station Farakpur, District Yamunanagar. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on complaint submitted by the complainant his nephew Aman, who was residing in Italy Yamunanagar on 22.10.2025 on the eve of Diwali. On 30.10.2025, he had left his house in a car alongwith his friend Ricky to meet his cousin Mohit at Ladwa. On reaching there, Aman had taken a sum of Rs.2 lakhs from Mohit and had -2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SUBITA KUMARI Versus HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA P.S. Jammu, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana Mr. Ravinder S. Buchwar, Advocate and Dr. Kiran Pal Singh, Advocate for the *** 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. registered under Section 308(6) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short (Sections 308(4), 61(2) and 351(3) of BNS added later on) at Police Station Farakpur, District Yamunanagar. The aforementioned FIR was registered on complaint submitted by the complainant-Sukhdev Singh, alleging therein that his nephew Aman, who was residing in Italy Yamunanagar on 22.10.2025 on the eve of Diwali. On 30.10.2025, he had left n a car alongwith his friend Ricky to meet his cousin Mohit at Ladwa. On reaching there, Aman had taken a sum of Rs.2 lakhs from Mohit and had IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-30683-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.07.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ravinder S. Buchwar, Advocate and Dr. Kiran Pal Singh, Advocate for the complainant preferred by the petitioner under of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) in case arising out of FIR No.178 dated 01.11.2025 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short (Sections 308(4), 61(2) and 351(3) of BNS added later on) at Police The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written Sukhdev Singh, alleging therein that his nephew Aman, who was residing in Italy, had come to his house in Yamunanagar on 22.10.2025 on the eve of Diwali. On 30.10.2025, he had left n a car alongwith his friend Ricky to meet his cousin Mohit at Ladwa. On reaching there, Aman had taken a sum of Rs.2 lakhs from Mohit and had (O&M) 2026 under of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) 178 dated 01.11.2025 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short (Sections 308(4), 61(2) and 351(3) of BNS added later on) at Police the basis of a written Sukhdev Singh, alleging therein that had come to his house in Yamunanagar on 22.10.2025 on the eve of Diwali. On 30.10.2025, he had left n a car alongwith his friend Ricky to meet his cousin Mohit at Ladwa. On reaching there, Aman had taken a sum of Rs.2 lakhs from Mohit and had AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.29 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-30683- left, by informing that he was going to Delhi for evening, a WhatsApp call was received and the caller demanded ransom money of Rs.70 lakhs. another phone call was received informing that Aman had been involved in a rape case and could be released only on receipt of Rs.70 lakhs. The the complainant to deliver money at Panipat or Sonipat. 3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. During the course of investigation, CCTV footage was obtained from Panipat Toll Plaza. T Lal were arrested on 17.12.2025. The accused Mukesh Kumar suffered disclosure statement to the effect that he alongwith Ranjit, Amee Lal and Baldev Singh were involved in misappropriated an amount of Rs.70 lakhs belonging to the above etc. In order to recover the same, a conspiracy was hatched the victim Aman in a rape case and to extort a sum of Rs.70 lakhs. He disclosed that he al registered a false case against the victim Aman at Police Station Jaswantgarh Rajasthan and on 30.10.2025, had caught hold of him alongwith his friend Ricky. Both of them were taken to the The accused Mukesh Kumar got recovered the v time of occurrence. The accused Amee Lal Kumar also suffered similar disclosure statement. -2026 (O&M) 2 left, by informing that he was going to Delhi for evening, a WhatsApp call was received informing that Aman had been abducted demanded ransom money of Rs.70 lakhs. another phone call was received informing that Aman had been involved in a rape case and could be released only on receipt of Rs.70 lakhs. The the complainant to deliver money at Panipat or Sonipat. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. During the course of investigation, CCTV footage btained from Panipat Toll Plaza. The accused Mukesh Kumar and Amee Lal were arrested on 17.12.2025. The accused Mukesh Kumar suffered disclosure statement to the effect that he alongwith Ranjit, Amee Lal and Baldev Singh were involved in a racket of gold smuggling. The victim Aman had sappropriated an amount of Rs.70 lakhs belonging to the above etc. In order to recover the same, a conspiracy was hatched the victim Aman in a rape case and to extort a sum of Rs.70 lakhs. He disclosed that he alongwith the petitioner and registered a false case against the victim Aman at Police Station Jaswantgarh and on 30.10.2025, had caught hold of him alongwith his friend Ricky. Both of them were taken to the above Police Mukesh Kumar got recovered the v time of occurrence. The accused Amee Lal, uncle of the co Kumar also suffered similar disclosure statement. left, by informing that he was going to Delhi for some work. On the same informing that Aman had been abducted demanded ransom money of Rs.70 lakhs. On 31.10.2025 also, another phone call was received informing that Aman had been involved in a rape case and could be released only on receipt of Rs.70 lakhs. The caller told the complainant to deliver money at Panipat or Sonipat. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. During the course of investigation, CCTV footage he accused Mukesh Kumar and Amee Lal were arrested on 17.12.2025. The accused Mukesh Kumar suffered disclosure statement to the effect that he alongwith Ranjit, Amee Lal and Baldev racket of gold smuggling. The victim Aman had sappropriated an amount of Rs.70 lakhs belonging to the above-named Ranjit etc. In order to recover the same, a conspiracy was hatched to falsely implicate the victim Aman in a rape case and to extort a sum of Rs.70 lakhs. He further ongwith the petitioner and other co-accused had got registered a false case against the victim Aman at Police Station Jaswantgarh, and on 30.10.2025, had caught hold of him alongwith his friend Police Station and were assaulted. Mukesh Kumar got recovered the vehicle and cellphone used at the uncle of the co-accused Mukesh Kumar also suffered similar disclosure statement. work. On the same informing that Aman had been abducted 31.10.2025 also, another phone call was received informing that Aman had been involved in a caller told After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. During the course of investigation, CCTV footage he accused Mukesh Kumar and Amee Lal were arrested on 17.12.2025. The accused Mukesh Kumar suffered disclosure statement to the effect that he alongwith Ranjit, Amee Lal and Baldev racket of gold smuggling. The victim Aman had named Ranjit to falsely implicate further accused had got , and on 30.10.2025, had caught hold of him alongwith his friend Station and were assaulted. ehicle and cellphone used at the accused Mukesh AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.29 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-30683- 4. As per the further all 01.04.2026. He too suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and about the complicity of the petitioner, who was posted as a Police official at Police Station Jaswantgarh, District Didwan petitioner was nominated as application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamunanagar vide order dated 18.05.2026. 5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact 27.10.2025 by one Suman at Police Station Jaswantgarh against the victim Aman and to apprehend the latte accompanied the police officials of Police Station Jaswantgarh. A diary entry dated 30.10.2025 was made qua her departure alongwith HC Mahesh Kumar to Jagadhari. An entry in the general diary with regard to her arr made. She only performed her official party. The victim Aman being an influential person has managed the investigation of the FIR No.137 antecedents are interrogation is not required. The ingredients for commission of subject offences are not made out against her. It is, therefore, argued that she deserves to be extended benefit of pre -2026 (O&M) 3 As per the further allegations, accused Ranjit was arrested on 01.04.2026. He too suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and about the complicity of the petitioner, who was posted as a Police official at Police Station Jaswantgarh, District Didwan petitioner was nominated as an accused. Apprehending her arrest, she moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamunanagar vide order dated It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, on lodging of an FIR No.137 dated 27.10.2025 by one Suman at Police Station Jaswantgarh against the victim Aman and to apprehend the latter and to conduct investigation, she had accompanied the police officials of Police Station Jaswantgarh. A diary entry dated 30.10.2025 was made qua her departure alongwith HC Mahesh Kumar to Jagadhari. An entry in the general diary with regard to her arr made. She only performed her official duty and had accompanied the raiding party. The victim Aman being an influential person has managed the investigation of the FIR No.137 which has led antecedents are clean. She is ready to join investigation. Her custodial interrogation is not required. The ingredients for commission of subject offences are not made out against her. It is, therefore, argued that she deserves to be extended benefit of pre-arrest bail. egations, accused Ranjit was arrested on 01.04.2026. He too suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and about the complicity of the petitioner, who was posted as a Police official at Police Station Jaswantgarh, District Didwana, Rajasthan. The accused. Apprehending her arrest, she moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamunanagar vide order dated It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has been on lodging of an FIR No.137 dated 27.10.2025 by one Suman at Police Station Jaswantgarh against the victim r and to conduct investigation, she had accompanied the police officials of Police Station Jaswantgarh. A diary entry dated 30.10.2025 was made qua her departure alongwith HC Mahesh Kumar to Jagadhari. An entry in the general diary with regard to her arrival had also been duty and had accompanied the raiding party. The victim Aman being an influential person has managed the which has led cancellation of the same. Her clean. She is ready to join investigation. Her custodial interrogation is not required. The ingredients for commission of subject offences are not made out against her. It is, therefore, argued that she deserves egations, accused Ranjit was arrested on 01.04.2026. He too suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and about the complicity of the petitioner, who was posted as a Police a, Rajasthan. The accused. Apprehending her arrest, she moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamunanagar vide order dated It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has been on lodging of an FIR No.137 dated 27.10.2025 by one Suman at Police Station Jaswantgarh against the victim r and to conduct investigation, she had accompanied the police officials of Police Station Jaswantgarh. A diary entry dated 30.10.2025 was made qua her departure alongwith HC Mahesh Kumar to ival had also been duty and had accompanied the raiding party. The victim Aman being an influential person has managed the . Her clean. She is ready to join investigation. Her custodial interrogation is not required. The ingredients for commission of subject offences are not made out against her. It is, therefore, argued that she deserves AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.29 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-30683- 6. Learned State counsel complainant has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as being a Police official conspiracy with Aman. The said FIR now stands cancelled. She alongwith the co tried to collect false evidence to link the victim with the crime FIR. The victim and his friend were abducted by th accused from Panipat Toll Plaza. Ransom was demanded from the family members of victim custodial interrogation is must for the purpose of conducting thorough investigation in the matter, for recovery of the vehicle as well as for unearthing the entire conspiracy. It is, therefore, argued 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 8. The petitioner who was an employee of Rajasthan Police is alleged to have apprehended/abducted victim Aman and his friend Ricky from Toll Plaza Panipat on 30.10.2025 and is further alleged to have demanded ransom money from his fa levelled in the aforementioned FIR. It has come on record that the allegations levelled in the said FIR report has been prepared. The petitioner h departure with other Police officials from Police Station Jaswantgarh on -2026 (O&M) 4 Learned State counsel assisted by learned complainant has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as being a Police official, she misused conspiracy with co-accused, she had got entered an FIR against the victim Aman. The said FIR now stands cancelled. She alongwith the co tried to collect false evidence to link the victim with the crime . The victim and his friend were abducted by th accused from Panipat Toll Plaza. Ransom was demanded from the family of victim. The vehicle used in the crime was arranged by her. Her custodial interrogation is must for the purpose of conducting thorough n the matter, for recovery of the vehicle as well as for unearthing the entire conspiracy. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel considerable length. The petitioner who was an employee of Rajasthan Police is alleged to have apprehended/abducted victim Aman and his friend Ricky from Toll Plaza Panipat on 30.10.2025 and is further alleged to have demanded ransom money from his family members to exonerate him from the allegations as levelled in the aforementioned FIR. It has come on record that the allegations levelled in the said FIR No.137 have been found to be report has been prepared. The petitioner has submitted that entries regarding her departure with other Police officials from Police Station Jaswantgarh on assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in , she misused her position and by hatching a had got entered an FIR against the victim Aman. The said FIR now stands cancelled. She alongwith the co-accused had tried to collect false evidence to link the victim with the crime alleged in the said . The victim and his friend were abducted by the petitioner and the co- accused from Panipat Toll Plaza. Ransom was demanded from the family . The vehicle used in the crime was arranged by her. Her custodial interrogation is must for the purpose of conducting thorough n the matter, for recovery of the vehicle as well as for unearthing the entire conspiracy. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel The petitioner who was an employee of Rajasthan Police is alleged to have apprehended/abducted victim Aman and his friend Ricky from Toll Plaza Panipat on 30.10.2025 and is further alleged to have demanded ransom mily members to exonerate him from the allegations as levelled in the aforementioned FIR. It has come on record that the allegations No.137 have been found to be false and a cancellation as submitted that entries regarding her departure with other Police officials from Police Station Jaswantgarh on counsel for the complainant has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in and by hatching a had got entered an FIR against the victim accused had alleged in the said - accused from Panipat Toll Plaza. Ransom was demanded from the family . The vehicle used in the crime was arranged by her. Her custodial interrogation is must for the purpose of conducting thorough n the matter, for recovery of the vehicle as well as for unearthing the entire conspiracy. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel The petitioner who was an employee of Rajasthan Police is alleged to have apprehended/abducted victim Aman and his friend Ricky from Toll Plaza Panipat on 30.10.2025 and is further alleged to have demanded ransom mily members to exonerate him from the allegations as levelled in the aforementioned FIR. It has come on record that the allegations false and a cancellation as submitted that entries regarding her departure with other Police officials from Police Station Jaswantgarh on AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.29 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-30683- 30.10.2025 and qua her arrival on 31.10.2025 the Police Station which affirm that the victim was apprehended by other police officials from Panipat Toll Plaza at the relevant point of time. The allegations prima facie against the petitioner since there is nothing on record to show that the local Police of Panipat from whose jurisdiction the victim had been apprehended by the petitioner and the other Police officials, had been given information about arrival of the petitioner and other Police officials or they were intimated about the so called arrest of investigation, to ascertain the exact role as played by the petitioner, to know about the details of the conspiracy hatched, this Court is of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the petitio settled proposition of law that anticipatory bail to an accused can be granted in exceptional circumstances only as a person couched in comparative safety of pre-arrest bail would certainly not disclose all the facts within his kno 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. In the instant case, no such exceptional or extra ordinary circumstance is, however, made out from the pl petitioner. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition Accordingly the same is dismissed. -2026 (O&M) 5 30.10.2025 and qua her arrival on 31.10.2025, had been made in the record of the Police Station which affirm that the victim was apprehended by other police officials from Panipat Toll Plaza at the relevant point of time. The prima facie make out a case for commission of subject offences as against the petitioner since there is nothing on record to show that the local of Panipat from whose jurisdiction the victim had been apprehended by the petitioner and the other Police officials, had been given information about arrival of the petitioner and other Police officials or they were intimated about the so called arrest of Aman. For the purpose of conducting proper investigation, to ascertain the exact role as played by the petitioner, to know about the details of the conspiracy hatched, this Court is of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the petitio settled proposition of law that anticipatory bail to an accused can be granted in exceptional circumstances only as a person couched in comparative safety of arrest bail would certainly not disclose all the facts within his kno 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. In the instant case, no such exceptional or extra rcumstance is, however, made out from the pl Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed Accordingly the same is dismissed. had been made in the record of the Police Station which affirm that the victim was apprehended by her and other police officials from Panipat Toll Plaza at the relevant point of time. The make out a case for commission of subject offences as against the petitioner since there is nothing on record to show that the local of Panipat from whose jurisdiction the victim had been apprehended by the petitioner and the other Police officials, had been given information about arrival of the petitioner and other Police officials or they were intimated about Aman. For the purpose of conducting proper investigation, to ascertain the exact role as played by the petitioner, to know about the details of the conspiracy hatched, this Court is of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. It is well settled proposition of law that anticipatory bail to an accused can be granted in exceptional circumstances only as a person couched in comparative safety of 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. In the instant case, no such exceptional or extra- rcumstance is, however, made out from the pleas as taken by the Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of does not deserve to be allowed. had been made in the record of her and other police officials from Panipat Toll Plaza at the relevant point of time. The make out a case for commission of subject offences as against the petitioner since there is nothing on record to show that the local of Panipat from whose jurisdiction the victim had been apprehended by the petitioner and the other Police officials, had been given information about arrival of the petitioner and other Police officials or they were intimated about Aman. For the purpose of conducting proper investigation, to ascertain the exact role as played by the petitioner, to know about the details of the conspiracy hatched, this Court is of the considered It is well settled proposition of law that anticipatory bail to an accused can be granted in exceptional circumstances only as a person couched in comparative safety of wledge. In case custodial interrogation of the petitioner is denied to the Investigating Agency, that shall leave many glaring loopholes and gaps, thereby adversely - eas as taken by the Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of . AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.29 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-30683- 9. 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 on the merits of the case. 10. Since the main petition has been any, is rendered infructuous. 28.07.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 6 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 on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been dismissed , is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No 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 dismissed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No 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 , pending application, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.29 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.