CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Poonam Rani State of Punjab CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. seeking grant of anticipatory/pre 2023 in FIR No. under Sections District Ludhiana. 2. illegal activities Neeru Bala, an NRI herein) and her husband namely Ashok Kumar November 2024, her husband namely Pawan Kumar visited India. During the stay of her husband in India, he allegedly met with an accident being set up by the accused Poonam (petitioner herein) and Ashok in order to keep aforesaid accused the mobile of her husband and -52338-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Poonam Rani V/s Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Naveen Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit K. Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Ketan Chopra, Advocate for the complainant. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under in FIR No.20 dated 27.08.2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 308(2) of the BNS, 2023 (384 of IPC) District Ludhiana. The gravamen of the FIR pertains to illegal activities being carried out in the house of the complainant namely Neeru Bala, an NRI, currently living in the USA in) and her husband namely Ashok Kumar November 2024, her husband namely Pawan Kumar visited India. During the stay of her husband in India, he allegedly met with an accident being set up by the accused Poonam (petitioner herein) and in order to keep the husband of the complainant aforesaid accused, thereafter, blocked the number of the complainant from the mobile of her husband and also changed the passwords 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-52338-2025 Date of decision: 22.09.202 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit K. Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Ketan Chopra, Advocate for the complainant. ***** Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS, registered for offences punishable BNS, 2023 (384 of IPC) at Police Station NRI, pertains to issuance of threats and being carried out in the house of the complainant namely currently living in the USA by Poonam (petitioner in) and her husband namely Ashok Kumar. She alleged that in November 2024, her husband namely Pawan Kumar visited India. During the stay of her husband in India, he allegedly met with an accident being set up by the accused Poonam (petitioner herein) and her husband namely the husband of the complainant in India. The blocked the number of the complainant from changed the passwords of the security .2025 Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner BNSS, registered for offences punishable NRI, threats and being carried out in the house of the complainant namely Poonam (petitioner . She alleged that in November 2024, her husband namely Pawan Kumar visited India. During the stay of her husband in India, he allegedly met with an accident being set her husband namely in India. The blocked the number of the complainant from of the security AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.22 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- cameras to prevent Poonam (petitioner herein) attempted to manipulate the husband of the complainant to obtain alleged that the accused applied some oil on the legs of the husband of the complainant which caused a long lasting infection. Furthermore, the accused Poonam (petitioner herein) who had keys misused the pr The aforesaid accused also linked the security camera system installed at the house of the complainant to their phones and the cameras would often appear offline. Moreover, the electricity bill also rose many folds after giving access to the aforesaid accused i.e. Rs.20,000/ house, the accused Poonam (petitioner herein) refused, threatened the complainant and falsely claimed ownership of the house. The accused Poonam (petitioner herein) the keys. It was further alleged that the accused Poonam (petitioner herein) had called the complainant several times, house in India complainant had requested her neighbor, who is the President of Sector 32 A, to put an extra lock on the main gate of the house of the complainant. the basis of the aforesaid complaint, instant FIR has been registered against the petitioner and 3. petitioner -52338-2025 cameras to prevent any access. It was further alleged that the accused Poonam (petitioner herein) attempted to manipulate the husband of the complainant to obtain the power of attorney of their properties. alleged that the accused Ashok, who is the husband of t applied some oil on the legs of the husband of the complainant which caused a long lasting infection. Furthermore, the accused Poonam (petitioner herein) who had keys of the house of the complainant for cleaning purposes, misused the property for illegal activities such as prostitution and drugs. The aforesaid accused also linked the security camera system installed at the house of the complainant to their phones and the cameras would often appear offline. Moreover, the electricity bill also rose many folds after giving access to the aforesaid accused i.e. Rs.20,000/- per bill cycle. When the complainant demanded the keys of her house, the accused Poonam (petitioner herein) refused, threatened the inant and falsely claimed ownership of the house. The accused (petitioner herein) even extorted money in exchange for returning the keys. It was further alleged that the accused Poonam (petitioner herein) had called the complainant several times, house in India else she would face the complainant had requested her neighbor, who is the President of Sector 32 A, to put an extra lock on the main gate of the house of the complainant. the basis of the aforesaid complaint, instant FIR has been registered against the petitioner and her husband and investigation ensued. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in 2 access. It was further alleged that the accused Poonam (petitioner herein) attempted to manipulate the husband of the power of attorney of their properties. It was further Ashok, who is the husband of the petitioner, also applied some oil on the legs of the husband of the complainant which caused a long lasting infection. Furthermore, the accused Poonam (petitioner herein) the house of the complainant for cleaning purposes, operty for illegal activities such as prostitution and drugs. The aforesaid accused also linked the security camera system installed at the house of the complainant to their phones and the cameras would often appear offline. Moreover, the electricity bills of the house of the complainant also rose many folds after giving access to the aforesaid accused i.e. per bill cycle. When the complainant demanded the keys of her house, the accused Poonam (petitioner herein) refused, threatened the inant and falsely claimed ownership of the house. The accused even extorted money in exchange for returning the keys. It was further alleged that the accused Poonam (petitioner herein) had called the complainant several times, threatening her not to return to her the consequences. Due to this, the complainant had requested her neighbor, who is the President of Sector 32 A, to put an extra lock on the main gate of the house of the complainant. the basis of the aforesaid complaint, instant FIR has been registered against investigation ensued. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question as she has no access. It was further alleged that the accused Poonam (petitioner herein) attempted to manipulate the husband of the It was further he petitioner, also applied some oil on the legs of the husband of the complainant which caused a long lasting infection. Furthermore, the accused Poonam (petitioner herein) the house of the complainant for cleaning purposes, operty for illegal activities such as prostitution and drugs. The aforesaid accused also linked the security camera system installed at the house of the complainant to their phones and the cameras would often s of the house of the complainant also rose many folds after giving access to the aforesaid accused i.e. per bill cycle. When the complainant demanded the keys of her house, the accused Poonam (petitioner herein) refused, threatened the inant and falsely claimed ownership of the house. The accused even extorted money in exchange for returning the keys. It was further alleged that the accused Poonam (petitioner herein) threatening her not to return to her Due to this, the complainant had requested her neighbor, who is the President of Sector 32- A, to put an extra lock on the main gate of the house of the complainant. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, instant FIR has been registered against Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the question as she has no AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.22 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- connection whatsoever with the alleged offence. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner, a poor maid, is in fact a victim of rape at the hands of the husband of the complainant dated 27.08.2025 under Section 64 of BNS was registered at Police Station NRI. As a counterblast, the complainant has managed to get the impugned FIR registered against the petitioner and her husband only to pressurize her. According to learned counsel, the enti which was projected by the complainant to shield her husband and to harass the petitioner. Furthermore, no witness or material has been brought on record to substantiate the grave allegations. Neither the petitioner n husband ever made or circulated any alleged video nor demanded money from the complainant which has also come forth in the preliminary enquiry. It has been further argued that there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner as nothing incriminating remains to be recovered from Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or tampering enlarged on pre anticipatory bail is entreated for. 4. notice) has that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. According to learned State counsel, involving blackmailing and extortion. allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner unearth the broader conspiracy -52338-2025 connection whatsoever with the alleged offence. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner, a poor maid, is in fact a victim of rape at the hands of the husband of the complainant .08.2025 under Section 64 of BNS was registered at Police Station NRI. As a counterblast, the complainant has managed to get the impugned FIR registered against the petitioner and her husband only to pressurize her. According to learned counsel, the entire narrative of the FIR is concocted which was projected by the complainant to shield her husband and to harass the petitioner. Furthermore, no witness or material has been brought on record to substantiate the grave allegations. Neither the petitioner n husband ever made or circulated any alleged video nor demanded money from the complainant which has also come forth in the preliminary enquiry. t has been further argued that there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner as nothing incriminating remains to be recovered from Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or tampering with the prosecution evidence in case enlarged on pre-arrest bail. On strength of these submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for. Per contra, 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. According to learned State counsel, the allegations in the FIR are grave in nature involving blackmailing and extortion. Considering the seri allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner unearth the broader conspiracy, if any. Furthermore, in case the petitioner is 3 connection whatsoever with the alleged offence. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner, a poor maid, is in fact a victim of rape at the hands of the husband of the complainant, regarding which FIR No.0019 .08.2025 under Section 64 of BNS was registered at Police Station NRI. As a counterblast, the complainant has managed to get the impugned FIR registered against the petitioner and her husband only to pressurize her. re narrative of the FIR is concocted which was projected by the complainant to shield her husband and to harass the petitioner. Furthermore, no witness or material has been brought on record to substantiate the grave allegations. Neither the petitioner nor her husband ever made or circulated any alleged video nor demanded money from the complainant which has also come forth in the preliminary enquiry. t has been further argued that there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner as nothing incriminating remains to be recovered from her Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the with the prosecution evidence in case she is arrest bail. On strength of these submissions, the grant of , learned State counsel (on the strength of advance anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. According allegations in the FIR are grave in nature Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to . Furthermore, in case the petitioner is connection whatsoever with the alleged offence. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner, a poor maid, is in fact a victim of rape at FIR No.0019 .08.2025 under Section 64 of BNS was registered at Police Station NRI. As a counterblast, the complainant has managed to get the impugned FIR registered against the petitioner and her husband only to pressurize her. re narrative of the FIR is concocted which was projected by the complainant to shield her husband and to harass the petitioner. Furthermore, no witness or material has been brought on or her husband ever made or circulated any alleged video nor demanded money from the complainant which has also come forth in the preliminary enquiry. t has been further argued that there is no need for custodial interrogation of her. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the he is arrest bail. On strength of these submissions, the grant of (on the strength of advance anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. According allegations in the FIR are grave in nature ousness of the necessary to . Furthermore, in case the petitioner is AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.22 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- granted the concession of pre ongoing inv influencing of witnesses. dismissal 5. opposed the grant of b complainant resides abroad and has entrusted her house to the petitioner for cleaning purpose. According to learned counsel, the petitioner honey trapped the husband of the complainant, made video clips and complainant from the mobile phone of her husband namely Ashok Kumar and demanded Rs.3.50 lacs. dismissal 6. gone through the available record of the case. 7. serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. contained record reveals that the husband of the complainant into establishing illicit relations with the petitioner and deliberately video transmitted t by threatening to make it viral. phone used for recording the videos, the original video data store and the mobile phone complainant are yet to be recovered as these constitute vital evidence for the -52338-2025 granted the concession of pre-arrest bail, at this stage, it may impede the ongoing investigation and potentially lead to tampering with evidence or influencing of witnesses. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the instant petition. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has vociferously opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner complainant resides abroad and has entrusted her house to the petitioner for cleaning purpose. According to learned counsel, the petitioner honey trapped the husband of the complainant, made video clips and complainant from the mobile phone of her husband namely Ashok Kumar and demanded Rs.3.50 lacs. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the instant petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the gone through the available record of the case. As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. contained in the FIR cannot be brushed aside as vag record reveals that the petitioner alongwith her husband honey trapped the husband of the complainant into establishing illicit relations with the petitioner and deliberately video-graphed the incident. Thereafter, they transmitted the video clips to the complainant and attempted to extort money by threatening to make it viral. As per the stand of the State, the mobile phone used for recording the videos, the original video data store and the mobile phone(s) allegedly used for transmitting the clips to the complainant are yet to be recovered as these constitute vital evidence for the 4 arrest bail, at this stage, it may impede the and potentially lead to tampering with evidence or Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has vociferously ail to the petitioner. He has submitted that the complainant resides abroad and has entrusted her house to the petitioner for cleaning purpose. According to learned counsel, the petitioner honey trapped the husband of the complainant, made video clips and sent the same to the complainant from the mobile phone of her husband namely Ashok Kumar Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case. As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. The allegations in the FIR cannot be brushed aside as vague or baseless as the petitioner alongwith her husband honey trapped the husband of the complainant into establishing illicit relations with the graphed the incident. Thereafter, they he video clips to the complainant and attempted to extort money As per the stand of the State, the mobile phone used for recording the videos, the original video data stored therein used for transmitting the clips to the complainant are yet to be recovered as these constitute vital evidence for the arrest bail, at this stage, it may impede the and potentially lead to tampering with evidence or Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has vociferously . He has submitted that the complainant resides abroad and has entrusted her house to the petitioner for cleaning purpose. According to learned counsel, the petitioner honey trapped sent the same to the complainant from the mobile phone of her husband namely Ashok Kumar Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the and have As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably, The allegations as the petitioner alongwith her husband honey trapped the husband of the complainant into establishing illicit relations with the graphed the incident. Thereafter, they he video clips to the complainant and attempted to extort money As per the stand of the State, the mobile therein used for transmitting the clips to the complainant are yet to be recovered as these constitute vital evidence for the AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.22 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- progress of investigation. It is settled law that while considering anticipatory bail, the Court must strike a balance between the right liberty and the need for free, fair and effective investigation. allegations, if found to be true, reflect a deliberate attempt to defraud the complainant response to pr 8. petitioner involves appreciation of evidence which cannot be considered and permissible at Whether the FIR l registered against the husband of the petitioner can only be adjudicated upon the conclusion of the investigation or during the course of trial. considered opinion of this Court, grant likely to hamper the 9. interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary to recovery the DVR, to verify the alleged video accused. are grave in nature involving betrayal of trust, blackmailing and extortion also the role of the petitioner, it is not appropriate to grant bail at this stage. No cause which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present complainant has categoric -52338-2025 progress of investigation. It is settled law that while considering anticipatory bail, the Court must strike a balance between the right liberty and the need for free, fair and effective investigation. allegations, if found to be true, reflect a deliberate attempt to defraud the complainant. Such offences necessitate a strong and principled judicial response to prevent their recurrence. The plea of false implication and counterblast raised by the petitioner involves appreciation of evidence which cannot be considered and permissible at the stage of consideration of plea for anticipatory bail Whether the FIR lodged by the complainant is a counterblast to the FIR registered against the husband of the petitioner can only be adjudicated upon the conclusion of the investigation or during the course of trial. considered opinion of this Court, granting likely to hamper the on-going investigation. In the considered opinion of this Court, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary to recovery the DVR, to verify the alleged video as also to unearth the accused. Moreover, considering the allegations levelled in the FIR which are grave in nature involving betrayal of trust, blackmailing and extortion also the role of the petitioner, it is not appropriate to grant bail at this . 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. It goes without saying that in the instant case, the complainant has categorically stated that the petitioner 5 progress of investigation. It is settled law that while considering anticipatory bail, the Court must strike a balance between the right of the individual to liberty and the need for free, fair and effective investigation. The allegations, if found to be true, reflect a deliberate attempt to defraud the Such offences necessitate a strong and principled judicial The plea of false implication and counterblast raised by the petitioner involves appreciation of evidence which cannot be considered and of consideration of plea for anticipatory bail odged by the complainant is a counterblast to the FIR registered against the husband of the petitioner can only be adjudicated upon the conclusion of the investigation or during the course of trial. In the ing anticipatory bail at this stage may investigation. In the considered opinion of this Court, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary to recovery the DVR, to to unearth the role/involvement of other allegations levelled in the FIR which are grave in nature involving betrayal of trust, blackmailing and extortion also the role of the petitioner, it is not appropriate to grant bail at this nascent plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated FIR. It goes without saying that in the instant case, the ally stated that the petitioner alongwith progress of investigation. It is settled law that while considering anticipatory of the individual to The allegations, if found to be true, reflect a deliberate attempt to defraud the Such offences necessitate a strong and principled judicial The plea of false implication and counterblast raised by the petitioner involves appreciation of evidence which cannot be considered and of consideration of plea for anticipatory bail. odged by the complainant is a counterblast to the FIR registered against the husband of the petitioner can only be adjudicated upon In the may In the considered opinion of this Court, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary to recovery the DVR, to role/involvement of other allegations levelled in the FIR which are grave in nature involving betrayal of trust, blackmailing and extortion as nascent plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated FIR. It goes without saying that in the instant case, the alongwith her AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.22 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- husband recorded a compromise video of the husband of the complainant but also attempted to extort money by threatening to make it viral. 10. grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interests. The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fai impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that petitioner. The material which has come on record investigation, appear to be established 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. Anil Sharma, (1997) Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) -52338-2025 husband recorded a compromise video of the husband of the complainant but also attempted to extort money by threatening to make it viral. 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 interests. 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 wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie petitioner. The material which has come on record investigation, appear to be established 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. Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 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 like this, effective interrogation of a suspected pers advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if 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 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. 6 husband recorded a compromise video of the husband of the complainant but also attempted to extort money by threatening to make it viral. 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 interests. The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the r and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be established 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 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is 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 suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre 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 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 ences would not conduct themselves as offenders.” husband recorded a compromise video of the husband of the complainant but 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 interests. The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the r and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no case is not made out against the and preliminary investigation, appear to be established a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it State v. Hon’ble “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is oriented than questioning a suspect who is well- of the Code. In a case on 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- 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 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 AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.22 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 11. attributed to the petitioner and the necessity of custodial interrogation for a fair and thorough investigation, this Court is of the consid the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu 12. (i) (ii) of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. (iii) September Ajay -52338-2025 In view of the gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioner and the necessity of custodial interrogation for a fair and thorough investigation, this Court is of the consid the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the milieu of the case in hand. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: The instant petition is devoid of merits and is hereby Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. September 22, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 7 In view of the gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioner and the necessity of custodial interrogation for a fair and thorough investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No In view of the gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioner and the necessity of custodial interrogation for a ered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the dismissed. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.22 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document