CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----19253 19253 19253 19253 102 102 102 102 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 Darshan Kumar State of Haryana Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of 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. P.C.) petitioner, in case bearing FIR No. punishable under (for short ‘PC Act’) and Section 61 of the BNS, 2023 Hisar, District Fatehabad. 2. hand is drawn from the order dated Court (whereby anticipatory bail plea of the petitioner was declined) reads as under: 19253 19253 19253 19253----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----19253 19253 19253 19253----2026 2026 2026 2026 Darshan Kumar versus Haryana Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: September 10 September 10 September 10 September 10, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: September September September September 11 11 11 11, 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. Hitesh Verma, Advocate for the Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, Advocate for the complainant. ***** ***** ***** ***** 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.26 dated 11.07.2025 punishable under Sections 7, 7A & 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘PC Act’) and Section 61 of the BNS, 2023 Hisar, District Fatehabad. For the sake of convenience, relevant factual hand is drawn from the order dated 01.04.2026 Court (whereby anticipatory bail plea of the petitioner was declined) reads as under: ““““2. Facts of the present case culminating into FIR are that a complaint given by Naresh Kumar son of Bhagat Singh, resident o received from office of ADGP, Anti Corruption Bureau, Haryana 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 Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana. it Chaudhary, Advocate for the complainant. filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail to the 11.07.2025, registered for the offences of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘PC Act’) and Section 61 of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station ACB, For the sake of convenience, relevant factual milieu of the case in passed by the concerned Sessions Court (whereby anticipatory bail plea of the petitioner was declined); the same Facts of the present case culminating into FIR are that a complaint given by Naresh Kumar son of Bhagat Singh, resident of Bhuna, was received from office of ADGP, Anti Corruption Bureau, Haryana 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 fences of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ACB, of the case in passed by the concerned Sessions the same Facts of the present case culminating into FIR are that a complaint Bhuna, was received from office of ADGP, Anti Corruption Bureau, Haryana MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----19253 19253 19253 19253----2026 2026 2026 2026 2222 (Panchkula) as well as Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hisar Division, Hisar which was entrusted to Devender Nain, DSP, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hisar for inquiry. It was stated in the complaint for taking action against Sanjay Bishnoi, DSP, Ratia for having taken bribe in FIR No.44 dated 15.02.2025 under Sections 3 (1)zc, 3(2) (va), 3SC/ST Act & 351 (3) BNS, P.S Bhuna. It was stated in the complaint that above said case was based on wrong/false facts but Investigating Officer in order to obtain bribe pressurized the accused persons and obtained an amount of Rs.10 lakh which was raised from the villagers and thereafter case was cancelled. That regarding above said matter many panchayats were conveyed because the allegations in the case were false and villagers were furious and agitated over the registration of false FIR. That they held dharnas and blocked the roads for cancellation the false FIR. That the complainant has came to know that DSP Sanjay Bishnoi, I.O had obtained a huge amount from the named accused persons in the FIR by threatening them of arrest and implication in that case. That when he talked to ASI Darshan Singh, Reader, DSP (I.O), Ratia, then he came to know that Darshan Singh had stated to have given Rs.5 lakh to the DSP for cancellation of the case and he is having call recording with him. That he is having a hand written note as well as voice recording of the persons who were falsely implicated in the case and he is ready to produce it before the Investigating Officer. In the end, it is prayed that strict legal action be taken against Sanjay Bishnoi, DSP (I.O) for having taken an amount of Rs.10 lakh from named accused person in above mentioned FIR for cancellation of FIR. During inquiry, DSP Devender Nain found that an FIR No.44 dated 15.02.2025 under Sections 3 (1)zc, 3(2)(va), 3SC/ST Act & 351 (3) BNS, P.S Bhuna was registered which was investigated by Sanjay Bishnoi, DSP Ratia. During investigation, sections 3(1)zc, 3(2)(va), 3SC/ST Act and 351(3) BNS were deleted and three accused persons who were arrested were got discharged and final report against Ramesh Kumar Chowkidar village Dhani Bhojraj was submitted under Section 353(2) BNS. During further inquiry call recording produced by complainant Naresh were analyzed and inquiry report suggesting registration of FIR was sent to ADGP, Anti Corruption Bureau, Haryana (Panchkula). That after receiving letter from ADGP, Anti Corruption Bureau, Haryana (Panchkula) present FIR under Sections 7, 7A, 8 P.C Act and 61 BNS against ASI Darshan and another public person under Section 8 P.C Act read with Section 61(2) BNS was registered. During investigation of the case, voice sample of ASI Darshan Singh as well as complainant were obtained and were sent to FSL, Madhuban, Karnal for comparison, statement of witnesses under Section 183 BNS were got recorded before the Ld. Illaqa Magistrate.”””” 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 for the petitioner has contended that, in fact, earlier in an FIR No.44 dated 15.02.2025 having been lodged by one Sadhuram, accused persons (therein) were found MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----19253 19253 19253 19253----2026 2026 2026 2026 3333 innocent, during investigation, by Sanjay Kumar Bishnoi – DSP and challan was presented only qua Chowkidar – Ramesh Kumar. It has been further contended that on 30.05.2025, a complaint against aforesaid DSP was filed alleging therein that the said DSP had taken bribe of Rs.10 lakhs in order to exonerate accused persons in FIR No.44 (ibid). It has been iterated that allegedly there was a recorded conversation, in respect of aforesaid allegation, to the effect that the petitioner, who was posted as a ‘Reader’ to aforesaid DSP at the relevant time, had allegedly admitted the money having been given to aforesaid DSP. Learned counsel has argued that during investigation, the petitioner had given his voice sample and FSL report is inconclusive, since it merely states that there is possibility that voice sample & recorded voice is of same person. It has been farer argued that the petitioner has nothing to do with the offence in question as the petitioner had never demanded or accepted any money from the complainant or any other person at any point of time. Learned counsel has urged that the complainant had also made a complaint to the National Human Rights Commission and on the said complaint, Superintendent of Police, Fatehabad had submitted its report dated 05.07.2025 (Annexure P-4), wherein, it was stated that no money whatsoever was paid, by any villager to any police officer and, thus, allegations against the police officer have been found to be false. Learned counsel has argued that, on the other hand, the complainant himself is involved in multiple cases of gambling. 3.1. Learned counsel has asserted that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. It has been further asserted that the petitioner is willing to join the investigation and cooperate therein as and when required, shall not tamper with evidence or influence any witness and shall abide by all the condition(s) imposed by the Court in case he is enlarged on pre-arrest bail. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----19253 19253 19253 19253----2026 2026 2026 2026 4444 4. Learned State counsel has filed reply by way of an affidavit dated 17.04.2026, which is already on record. Role of the petitioner, as mentioned in the aforesaid reply, reads thus: ““““5. During the enquiry, crucial material in the form of audio recordings of conversations between the petitioner, who was posted as Reader to the DSP, and other concerned persons came to light. These recordings were not only examined but also translated into Hindi for proper appreciation. The analysis of the said recordings, coupled with statements of witnesses and discreet verification carried out in village Dhani Bhojraj, clearly established that the petitioner was actively involved in the illegal transaction. It emerged that the petitioner had acknowledged receipt of approximately 5.5 lakhs and had indicated that the same was meant to be delivered to the DSP. The enquiry further revealed that villagers had collectively contributed money, thereby lending independent corroboration to the allegations. xx xx xx 9. That in order to scientifically verify the involvement of the petitioner, his voice sample as well as that of the complainant were obtained with due permission of the competent Court and were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. The report received from the FSL, along with spectrographic analysis, is placed on record as Annexure R-3. The said report supports the prosecution case and indicates consistency between the recorded conversations and the voice samples, thereby providing strong technical corroboration to the allegations and linking the petitioner with the incriminating conversations. 10. That the conduct of the petitioner throughout the investigation has been evasive and non-cooperative. Despite issuance of repeated notices on 25.07.2025 and 31.07.2025 by the investigating agency directing him to join investigation and to appear for voice sampling, the petitioner deliberately avoided compliance. Copies of such notices dated 25.07.2025 and 31.07.2025 are placed on record as Annexure R-5 and Annexure R-6, which clearly demonstrate that the petitioner was duly informed yet those not to cooperate initially. His conduct reflects a clear intention to evade the process of law.”””” 4.1. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel has opposed the petition in hand by arguing that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. It is, thus, argued that given the seriousness 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 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. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----19253 19253 19253 19253----2026 2026 2026 2026 5555 4.2. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of petition in hand by arguing that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. It has been argued that the petitioner had acknowledged of receipt of money in question and had indicated that the same was meant to be delivered to the DSP, and, thus, the petitioner ought not to be extended the concession of anticipatory bail. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition in hand is prayed for. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case. 6. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Devinder Kumar Bansal vs. The State of Punjab, 2025 Devinder Kumar Bansal vs. The State of Punjab, 2025 Devinder Kumar Bansal vs. The State of Punjab, 2025 Devinder Kumar Bansal vs. The State of Punjab, 2025 INSC 320, INSC 320, INSC 320, INSC 320, relevant whereof reads as under: ““““21. The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence like corruption are required to be satisfied. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous. So far as the case at hand is concerned, it cannot be said that any exceptional circumstances have been made out by the petitioner accused for grant of anticipatory bail and there is no frivolity in the prosecution. 22. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a pronouncement in Central Central Central Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy reported in (2013) 7 Scale 15 Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy reported in (2013) 7 Scale 15 Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy reported in (2013) 7 Scale 15 Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy reported in (2013) 7 Scale 15, wherein this Court expressed thus: “28. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.” 23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused’s liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice. 24. If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free society, then the courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty. Where overwhelming considerations in the nature aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a different thing to say that once the investigation is MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----19253 19253 19253 19253----2026 2026 2026 2026 6666 over and charge-sheet is filed, the court may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant - accused of indulging in corruption. 25. Avarice is a common frailty of mankind and Robert Walpole's famous pronouncement that all men have their price, notwithstanding the unsavoury cynicism that it suggests, is not very far from truth. As far back as more than two centuries ago, it was Burke who cautioned: “Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot last long”. In more recent years, Romain Rolland lamented that France fell because there was corruption without indignation. Corruption has, in it, very dangerous potentialities. Corruption, a word of wide connotation has, in respect of almost all the spheres of our day to day life, all the world over, the limited meaning of allowing decisions and actions to be influenced not by the rights or wrongs of a case but by the prospects of monetary gains or other selfish considerations. 26. If even a fraction of what was the vox pupuli about the magnitude of corruption to be true, then it would not be far removed from the truth, that it is the rampant corruption indulged in with impunity by highly placed persons that has led to economic unrest in this country. If one is asked to name one sole factor that effectively arrested the progress of our society to prosperity, undeniably it is corruption. If the society in a developing country faces a menace greater than even the one from the hired assassins to its law and order, then that is from the corrupt elements at the higher echelons of the Government and of the political parties.”””” 7. As per the prosecution case, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. A perusal of the prosecution case and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie, reveals that the recordings, coupled with the statements of the witnesses and discreet verification, clearly establish the petitioner’s active involvement in the illegal transaction. It has further, prima facie, emerged from the prosecution’s case that the petitioner acknowledged receipt of the money and indicated that the same was to be delivered to the DSP. It is further the case of the prosecution that the conduct of the petitioner throughout the course of investigation has remained evasive and non-cooperative inasmuch as, despite repeated notices issued by the investigating agency, directing the petitioner to join the investigation and appear for voice sampling, the petitioner deliberately avoided compliance therewith. The conduct of the petitioner clearly demonstrates that he was duly informed about the requirements of the investigation, yet initially chose not to cooperate with the investigating agency. The allegations against the petitioner as well as his conduct during investigation disentitle him the grant of extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----19253 19253 19253 19253----2026 2026 2026 2026 7777 8. Economic offences and offences related to corruption erode public trust and, therefore, the Court(s) are required to exercise caution while extending the concession of anticipatory bail. Given the nature of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail as it would impede the investigation. Furthermore, the plea of false implication raised by the petitioner is a disputed question of fact and requires appreciation of evidence, which cannot be adjudicated upon at this stage. The same can only be adjudicated upon the conclusion of the investigation or during the course of trial. In the considered opinion of this Court, granting anticipatory bail at this stage is likely to hamper the on-going investigation. 9. 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. 10. 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 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. 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, appear 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, ( v. Anil Sharma, ( v. Anil Sharma, ( v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] 1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] 1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] 1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----19253 19253 19253 19253----2026 2026 2026 2026 8888 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.”””” 11. Considering the nature and seriousness of the allegations, as also the necessity of custodial interrogation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand. 12. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: (i) The instant petition is devoid of merits and is, hereby, dismissed dismissed dismissed dismissed. (ii) Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. (iii) Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE September 10 September 10 September 10 September 10, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment