219. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Jahid Khan State of Haryana CORAM: Present: MANJARI NEHRU KAUL 1. under Section Section 379 of IPC, registered at Police Station Faridabad. 2. made by the learned counsel for the motion in the case IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision: Versus State of Haryana HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Mr. Mohd. Zeeshan Khan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Yuvraj Shandilya, AAG, Haryana ----- MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) The petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, in FIR No.60, dated 04.02.2021, under Section 379 of IPC, registered at Police Station On 06.02.2025, while noticing the following submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the case:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner, that the only allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR in question are of having received the stolen property i.e. a car. It has been contended that it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had in any manner participated in the theft of the vehicle, which he allegedly procured through the co-accused.” IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-7128-2025 Date of decision: 19.05.2025 .... Petitioner .... Respondent HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL an Khan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Yuvraj Shandilya, AAG, Haryana. seeking the concession of anticipatory bail, in FIR No.60, dated 04.02.2021, under Section 379 of IPC, registered at Police Station Adarsh Nagar, District while noticing the following submissions petitioner, this Court issued notice of Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the only allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR in question are of having received the stolen property i.e. a ar. It has been contended that it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had in any manner participated in the theft of the vehicle, which he allegedly procured through , in FIR No.60, dated 04.02.2021, under Adarsh Nagar, District while noticing the following submissions issued notice of , contends that the only allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR in question are of having received the stolen property i.e. a ar. It has been contended that it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had in any manner participated in the theft of the vehicle, which he allegedly procured through SANJEEV KUMAR 2025.05.19 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-7128-2025 - 2 - 3. Thereafter, vide order dated 24.02.2025, petitioner was granted interim bail and was directed to join investigation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 24.02.2025, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. Hence, the said order be made absolute. 5. Learned State counsel, on instructions from PSI Majoj, has however, vehemently opposed the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite, by submitting that although the petitioner has complied with the order dated 24.02.2025, however, he has not fully cooperated with the Investigating Agency; the petitioner is a habitual offender and he is involved in one other case of similar nature and he is a part of a gang which is involved in the vehicular thefts. Therefore, his custodial interrogation is necessitated. 6. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to make the order dated 24.02.2025 absolute. 7. Present petition stands dismissed accordingly. (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE May 19, 2025 sanjeev Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No SANJEEV KUMAR 2025.05.19 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document