CRM-M-10356 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 201 Amit Bansal State of Haryana Coram : Present: Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. 1. BNSS, 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case FIR No.8 dated 13.01.2025, BNS, 2023, at Police 2. registered on the complaint of had entered into an agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024 with Am himself and also as GPA of his wife Shinu Mittal. It was alleged that Amit Mittal and Shinu Mittal were the owners of House N Panchkula and they agreed to sell the same to the complainant vide agreement to sell dated 04.07.2 included the mortgage amount of Union Bank of India, with which the house in question was mortgaged by both the accused. The agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024 was signed by Amit Mittal on behalf of of his wife Shinu Mittal. The GPA dated 19.06.2024 was duly registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Panchkula in presence of the witnesses. The 10356-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Amit Bansal Versus State of Haryana Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj Mr. Karan Monga, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate, for the complainant. **** Bhardwaj, J. Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case FIR 8 dated 13.01.2025, registered under Sections BNS, 2023, at Police Station Sector-7, Panchkula, District Panchkula. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the present FIR was registered on the complaint of Deepak Kumar, in which it was alleged that he had entered into an agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024 with Am himself and also as GPA of his wife Shinu Mittal. It was alleged that Amit Mittal and Shinu Mittal were the owners of House N Panchkula and they agreed to sell the same to the complainant vide agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024 for a total sale consideration of Rs.3 crores, which included the mortgage amount of Union Bank of India, with which the house in question was mortgaged by both the accused. The agreement to sell dated was signed by Amit Mittal on behalf of of his wife Shinu Mittal. The GPA dated 19.06.2024 was duly registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Panchkula in presence of the witnesses. The - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-10356-2025 Decided on:11.09.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case FIR registered under Sections 318(4), 308(2), 61(2) of the 7, Panchkula, District Panchkula. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the present FIR was Deepak Kumar, in which it was alleged that he had entered into an agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024 with Amit Mittal for himself and also as GPA of his wife Shinu Mittal. It was alleged that Amit Mittal and Shinu Mittal were the owners of House No.198, Sector-25, Panchkula and they agreed to sell the same to the complainant vide agreement 024 for a total sale consideration of Rs.3 crores, which included the mortgage amount of Union Bank of India, with which the house in question was mortgaged by both the accused. The agreement to sell dated was signed by Amit Mittal on behalf of himself and as GPA holder of his wife Shinu Mittal. The GPA dated 19.06.2024 was duly registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Panchkula in presence of the witnesses. The ...Petitioner ...Respondent Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case FIR 318(4), 308(2), 61(2) of the Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the present FIR was Deepak Kumar, in which it was alleged that he it Mittal for himself and also as GPA of his wife Shinu Mittal. It was alleged that Amit 25, Panchkula and they agreed to sell the same to the complainant vide agreement 024 for a total sale consideration of Rs.3 crores, which included the mortgage amount of Union Bank of India, with which the house in question was mortgaged by both the accused. The agreement to sell dated himself and as GPA holder of his wife Shinu Mittal. The GPA dated 19.06.2024 was duly registered in the VINOD KUMAR office of the Sub Registrar, Panchkula in presence of the witnesses. The 2025.09.18 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-10356 complainant paid a sum of Rs.10 lacs through two RTGS of Rs.5 lacs each to the accused complainant, the accused would hand over possession of the house in question to the complainant as part performance of the agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024 and the balance sale co by the complainant to the accused at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. It was also agreed that the accused would clear all the outstanding dues and loan etc. against the said house in que Dues Certificate and permission to sell from the HSVP, Panchkula against this property before execution and registration of the sale deed. In compliance of the agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024, the complainant paid Rs.30 lacs through RTGS and Rs.1.35 crores through 4 RTGS, all dated 25.07.2024 to the accused, however, he came to know that accused no.2 Shinu Mittal had approached the office of the Estate Officer, application for not granting permission to sell/tra favour of anybody. The having received an amount of Rs.1.75 crores and, thereafter, in a well hatched conspiracy, accused Amit Mittal & Shinu Mittal the sale deed, whereas the complainant was ready to get the sale deed executed and registered by paying outstanding amount of crores. Hence, the request was made On registrat investigation, the complicity of the petitioner has been surfaced and, thus, he was also arrayed as an accused. approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions grant of concession of anticipatory bail interim protection was granted to the petitioner but when he failed to join the investigation, the 10356-2025 complainant paid a sum of Rs.10 lacs through two RTGS of Rs.5 lacs each to and it was agreed that after receipt of Rs.1.75 crores from the complainant, the accused would hand over possession of the house in question to the complainant as part performance of the agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024 and the balance sale consideration of Rs.1.25 crores was to be paid by the complainant to the accused at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. It was also agreed that the accused would clear all the outstanding dues and loan etc. against the said house in que Dues Certificate and permission to sell from the HSVP, Panchkula against this property before execution and registration of the sale deed. In compliance of the agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024, the complainant paid Rs.30 lacs GS and Rs.1.35 crores through 4 RTGS, all dated 25.07.2024 to the accused, however, he came to know that accused no.2 Shinu Mittal had approached the office of the Estate Officer, application for not granting permission to sell/tra favour of anybody. The mala fide intention of the accused was surfaced after having received an amount of Rs.1.75 crores and, thereafter, in a well hatched accused Amit Mittal & Shinu Mittal the sale deed, whereas the complainant was ready to get the sale deed executed and registered by paying outstanding amount of crores. Hence, the request was made to take legal action against the accused. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced investigation, the complicity of the petitioner has been surfaced and, thus, he was also arrayed as an accused. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions grant of concession of anticipatory bail and interim protection was granted to the petitioner but when he failed to join the investigation, the - 2 - complainant paid a sum of Rs.10 lacs through two RTGS of Rs.5 lacs each to and it was agreed that after receipt of Rs.1.75 crores from the complainant, the accused would hand over possession of the house in question to the complainant as part performance of the agreement to sell dated nsideration of Rs.1.25 crores was to be paid by the complainant to the accused at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. It was also agreed that the accused would clear all the outstanding dues and loan etc. against the said house in question and get No Dues Certificate and permission to sell from the HSVP, Panchkula against this property before execution and registration of the sale deed. In compliance of the agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024, the complainant paid Rs.30 lacs GS and Rs.1.35 crores through 4 RTGS, all dated 25.07.2024 to the accused, however, he came to know that accused no.2 Shinu Mittal had approached the office of the Estate Officer, HSVP, Panchkula, with an application for not granting permission to sell/transfer the house in question in intention of the accused was surfaced after having received an amount of Rs.1.75 crores and, thereafter, in a well hatched accused Amit Mittal & Shinu Mittal backed out from execution of the sale deed, whereas the complainant was ready to get the sale deed executed and registered by paying outstanding amount of sale consideration of Rs.1.25 to take legal action against the accused. ion of the FIR, the investigation commenced and during investigation, the complicity of the petitioner has been surfaced and, thus, he Apprehending arrest, the petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, for and after hearing both the sides, the interim protection was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 28.01.2025 but when he failed to join the investigation, the said relief was declined to him complainant paid a sum of Rs.10 lacs through two RTGS of Rs.5 lacs each to and it was agreed that after receipt of Rs.1.75 crores from the complainant, the accused would hand over possession of the house in question to the complainant as part performance of the agreement to sell dated nsideration of Rs.1.25 crores was to be paid by the complainant to the accused at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. It was also agreed that the accused would clear all the t No Dues Certificate and permission to sell from the HSVP, Panchkula against this property before execution and registration of the sale deed. In compliance of the agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024, the complainant paid Rs.30 lacs GS and Rs.1.35 crores through 4 RTGS, all dated 25.07.2024 to the accused, however, he came to know that accused no.2 Shinu Mittal had Panchkula, with an nsfer the house in question in intention of the accused was surfaced after having received an amount of Rs.1.75 crores and, thereafter, in a well hatched tion of the sale deed, whereas the complainant was ready to get the sale deed executed consideration of Rs.1.25 to take legal action against the accused. and during investigation, the complicity of the petitioner has been surfaced and, thus, he Apprehending arrest, the petitioner , for after hearing both the sides, the vide order dated 28.01.2025, o him VINOD KUMAR 2025.09.18 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-10356 vide order dated petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition. 3. the petitioner agreement to sell or otherwise with the complainant, however, he has been roped in the present case on the basis of false and frivolous allegations that he connived with the co conspiracy with her, g submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR are without any basis as the petitioner has no concern of whatsoever nature with the allegations made in the FIR and, thus, he deserves to be granted concession of anticipatory bail. 4. opposed the bail application while submitting that the petitioner is the key person who conspired with co the amount of earnest money of Rs.1.75 crores from the complainant, the sale deed has not been intentionally in order to cheat the complainant. It is submitted that Amit Mittal the agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024 on behalf of himself as well as on behalf of his wife Shinu Mittal as he was appointed as her GPA vide a valid registered document dated 19.06.2024 for the purpose of the sale of the house in question, how receiving the amount of earnest money of Rs.1.75 crores, in order to cheat the complainant, the petitioner conspired with the wife of the co Mittal and got the GPA dated 19.06.2024 canc record photocopy of the affidavit given by Shinu Mittal that she had given the GPA dated 19.06.2024 in favour of her husband Amit Mittal only for the purpose of management of the properties and not the sale/mortgage/transfer thereof, whereas Clause 5 of the said GPA clearly depicts that it was also for sale/transfer/relinquishment/gift/exchange/mortgage/conveyance/lease etc. of 10356-2025 vide order dated 19.02.2025. Hence, aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner is neither named in the FIR nor he ha agreement to sell or otherwise with the complainant, however, he has been roped in the present case on the basis of false and frivolous allegations that he connived with the co-accused Shinu Mittal and, thus, while hatc conspiracy with her, get the execution of the sale deed frustrated. He further submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR are without any basis as the petitioner has no concern of whatsoever nature with the allegations made in the thus, he deserves to be granted concession of anticipatory bail. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail application while submitting that the petitioner is the key person who conspired with co-accused Shinu Mi the amount of earnest money of Rs.1.75 crores from the complainant, the sale deed has not been intentionally executed only at the instance of the petitioner in order to cheat the complainant. It is submitted that Amit Mittal the agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024 on behalf of himself as well as on behalf of his wife Shinu Mittal as he was appointed as her GPA vide a valid registered document dated 19.06.2024 for the purpose of the sale of the house in question, however, after having entered into the agreement to sell and the amount of earnest money of Rs.1.75 crores, in order to cheat the complainant, the petitioner conspired with the wife of the co Mittal and got the GPA dated 19.06.2024 canc record photocopy of the affidavit given by Shinu Mittal that she had given the GPA dated 19.06.2024 in favour of her husband Amit Mittal only for the purpose of management of the properties and not the sale/mortgage/transfer hereof, whereas Clause 5 of the said GPA clearly depicts that it was also for sale/transfer/relinquishment/gift/exchange/mortgage/conveyance/lease etc. of - 3 - . Hence, aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the FIR nor he had entered into any agreement to sell or otherwise with the complainant, however, he has been roped in the present case on the basis of false and frivolous allegations that he accused Shinu Mittal and, thus, while hatching a t the execution of the sale deed frustrated. He further submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR are without any basis as the petitioner has no concern of whatsoever nature with the allegations made in the thus, he deserves to be granted concession of anticipatory bail. learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail application while submitting that the petitioner is the key accused Shinu Mittal and after having received the amount of earnest money of Rs.1.75 crores from the complainant, the sale only at the instance of the petitioner in order to cheat the complainant. It is submitted that Amit Mittal had signed the agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024 on behalf of himself as well as on behalf of his wife Shinu Mittal as he was appointed as her GPA vide a valid registered document dated 19.06.2024 for the purpose of the sale of the house ever, after having entered into the agreement to sell and the amount of earnest money of Rs.1.75 crores, in order to cheat the complainant, the petitioner conspired with the wife of the co-accused Amit Mittal and got the GPA dated 19.06.2024 cancelled. He has also placed on record photocopy of the affidavit given by Shinu Mittal that she had given the GPA dated 19.06.2024 in favour of her husband Amit Mittal only for the purpose of management of the properties and not the sale/mortgage/transfer hereof, whereas Clause 5 of the said GPA clearly depicts that it was also for sale/transfer/relinquishment/gift/exchange/mortgage/conveyance/lease etc. of . Hence, aggrieved against the said order, the Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that entered into any agreement to sell or otherwise with the complainant, however, he has been roped in the present case on the basis of false and frivolous allegations that he hing a t the execution of the sale deed frustrated. He further submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR are without any basis as the petitioner has no concern of whatsoever nature with the allegations made in the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail application while submitting that the petitioner is the key ttal and after having received the amount of earnest money of Rs.1.75 crores from the complainant, the sale only at the instance of the petitioner had signed the agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024 on behalf of himself as well as on behalf of his wife Shinu Mittal as he was appointed as her GPA vide a valid registered document dated 19.06.2024 for the purpose of the sale of the house ever, after having entered into the agreement to sell and the amount of earnest money of Rs.1.75 crores, in order to cheat the accused Amit elled. He has also placed on record photocopy of the affidavit given by Shinu Mittal that she had given the GPA dated 19.06.2024 in favour of her husband Amit Mittal only for the purpose of management of the properties and not the sale/mortgage/transfer hereof, whereas Clause 5 of the said GPA clearly depicts that it was also for VINOD KUMAR sale/transfer/relinquishment/gift/exchange/mortgage/conveyance/lease etc. of 2025.09.18 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-10356 the properties mention therein including the house in question. It is submitted that the petitioner, of anticipatory bail. 5. arguing on the lines of the learned counsel for the complainant and prays for dismissal of the presen 6. available record, it is deciphered that Rs.1.75 crores by the accused by in a well planned manner by hatching a conspiracy and the petition accused Shinu Mittal initially executed and registered GPA dated 19.06.2024 in favour of his husband Amit Mittal for the purpose of sale/transfer etc. of the house in question and when her husband Am agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024 to sell the said house on behalf of himself and also as GPA of his wife and also received an amount of Rs.1.75 crores from the complainant, the petitioner, while hatching conspiracy with accused Shinu Mittal, in a very clever move and with an ulterior motive to cheat the complainant, got the GPA dated 19.06.2024 cancelled at the behest of Shinu Mittal. The case would have to be parties had refused for perfo where the entire conspiracy has been hatched in a very planned manner while firstly executing the GPA to sell the house in question and later on withdrawing the same in a very clever move keeping in view the gravity and seriousness of the offences, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be appreciated at this stage where he has approached this Court for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail. However, the same could be appreciated at the relevant stage. 10356-2025 the properties mention therein including the house in question. It is submitted that the petitioner, being the main conspirator, does not deserve of anticipatory bail. Learned State counsel has also opposed the bail application while arguing on the lines of the learned counsel for the complainant and prays for dismissal of the present petition. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the available record, it is deciphered that the complainant has been cheated of Rs.1.75 crores by the accused by in a well planned manner by hatching a conspiracy and the petitioner is the mastermind of the entire game plan. ccused Shinu Mittal initially executed and registered GPA dated 19.06.2024 in favour of his husband Amit Mittal for the purpose of sale/transfer etc. of the house in question and when her husband Am agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024 to sell the said house on behalf of himself and also as GPA of his wife and also received an amount of Rs.1.75 crores from the complainant, the petitioner, while hatching conspiracy with Shinu Mittal, in a very clever move and with an ulterior motive to cheat the complainant, got the GPA dated 19.06.2024 cancelled at the behest of Shinu Mittal. The case would have to be on had refused for performance of the agreement to sell but here is a case where the entire conspiracy has been hatched in a very planned manner while firstly executing the GPA to sell the house in question and later on withdrawing the same in a very clever move in order to cheat keeping in view the gravity and seriousness of the offences, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be appreciated at this stage where he has approached this Court for the grant of concession of icipatory bail. However, the same could be appreciated at the relevant - 4 - the properties mention therein including the house in question. It is submitted being the main conspirator, does not deserve the concession Learned State counsel has also opposed the bail application while arguing on the lines of the learned counsel for the complainant and prays for After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the the complainant has been cheated of Rs.1.75 crores by the accused by in a well planned manner by hatching a er is the mastermind of the entire game plan. Co ccused Shinu Mittal initially executed and registered GPA dated 19.06.2024 in favour of his husband Amit Mittal for the purpose of sale/transfer etc. of the house in question and when her husband Amit Mittal had entered into the agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024 to sell the said house on behalf of himself and also as GPA of his wife and also received an amount of Rs.1.75 crores from the complainant, the petitioner, while hatching conspiracy with co Shinu Mittal, in a very clever move and with an ulterior motive to cheat the complainant, got the GPA dated 19.06.2024 cancelled at the behest of on different footings if either of the rmance of the agreement to sell but here is a case where the entire conspiracy has been hatched in a very planned manner while firstly executing the GPA to sell the house in question and later on withdrawing in order to cheat the complainant. Thus, keeping in view the gravity and seriousness of the offences, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be appreciated at this stage where he has approached this Court for the grant of concession of icipatory bail. However, the same could be appreciated at the relevant the properties mention therein including the house in question. It is submitted the concession Learned State counsel has also opposed the bail application while arguing on the lines of the learned counsel for the complainant and prays for After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the the complainant has been cheated of Rs.1.75 crores by the accused by in a well planned manner by hatching a Co- ccused Shinu Mittal initially executed and registered GPA dated 19.06.2024 in favour of his husband Amit Mittal for the purpose of sale/transfer etc. of the al had entered into the agreement to sell dated 04.07.2024 to sell the said house on behalf of himself and also as GPA of his wife and also received an amount of Rs.1.75 crores co- Shinu Mittal, in a very clever move and with an ulterior motive to cheat the complainant, got the GPA dated 19.06.2024 cancelled at the behest of if either of the rmance of the agreement to sell but here is a case where the entire conspiracy has been hatched in a very planned manner while firstly executing the GPA to sell the house in question and later on withdrawing Thus, keeping in view the gravity and seriousness of the offences, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be appreciated at this stage where he has approached this Court for the grant of concession of icipatory bail. However, the same could be appreciated at the relevant VINOD KUMAR 2025.09.18 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-10356 7. are given under Section 482 (1) & (2) of BNSS which reads as under: 8. Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 10356-2025 For the consideration of anticipatory bail, the statutory parameters are given under Section 482 (1) & (2) of BNSS which reads as under: “482. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest: 1. When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail. 2. When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such condition directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including (i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) a condition that the per indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; (iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub section (3) of section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section.” Hon'ble Supreme Court in State represented by (1997) 7 SCC 187 has held as under: “6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconded with 438 if the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Succession such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre - 5 - For the consideration of anticipatory bail, the statutory parameters are given under Section 482 (1) & (2) of BNSS which reads as under:- “482. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest: When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a rection under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; such other condition as may be imposed under sub section (3) of section 480, as if the bail were granted in State represented by CBI Vs. Anil has held as under:- “6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favorable order under Section if the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. gation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre-arrest bail during For the consideration of anticipatory bail, the statutory parameters When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a rection under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction s in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when son shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to a condition that the person shall not leave India without such other condition as may be imposed under sub- section (3) of section 480, as if the bail were granted CBI Vs. Anil “6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning Section if the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. gation would elude if the suspected person arrest bail during VINOD KUMAR 2025.09.18 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-10356 9. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632 and again reiterated take into consideration the factors like gravity of offence, chances of accused tampering with the evidence and probabilities of his fleeing from justice etc. The Court should be circumspect abou as well. The anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretion which should be exercised in the extraordinary circumstances. 10. apparent that the complicity of the petitioner has been The investigation is at its threshold. Thus, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage would scuttle the ongoing investigation. 11. Court is of the opinion that the petitioner does not qualify for exercising the extraordinary power by this Court in his favour. Resultantly, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. 12. on the merits of the case. September 11 vinod* 10356-2025 the time he 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 c task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.” Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judicial precedents including Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632 and again reiterated that while considering the anticipatory bail the Court is to take into consideration the factors like gravity of offence, chances of accused tampering with the evidence and probabilities of his fleeing from justice etc. The Court should be circumspect about the impact of its decision on the society as well. The anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretion which should be exercised in the extraordinary circumstances. Weighing the facts of the case on the anvil of the law settled, it is at the complicity of the petitioner has been The investigation is at its threshold. Thus, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage would scuttle the ongoing investigation. In view of the facts and circumsta Court is of the opinion that the petitioner does not qualify for exercising the extraordinary power by this Court in his favour. Resultantly, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. Nothing said herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 11, 2025 - 6 - the time he interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial ogation 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 task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judicial precedents including Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632, has time that while considering the anticipatory bail the Court is to take into consideration the factors like gravity of offence, chances of accused tampering with the evidence and probabilities of his fleeing from justice etc. t the impact of its decision on the society as well. The anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretion which should be exercised in the extraordinary circumstances. Weighing the facts of the case on the anvil of the law settled, it is at the complicity of the petitioner has been prima facie established. The investigation is at its threshold. Thus, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage would scuttle the ongoing investigation. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner does not qualify for exercising the extraordinary power by this Court in his favour. Resultantly, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. g said herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion (Rajesh Bhardwaj) Judge the time he interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial ogation 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 onduct themselves in task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judicial precedents including , has time that while considering the anticipatory bail the Court is to take into consideration the factors like gravity of offence, chances of accused tampering with the evidence and probabilities of his fleeing from justice etc. t the impact of its decision on the society as well. The anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretion which should be Weighing the facts of the case on the anvil of the law settled, it is established. The investigation is at its threshold. Thus, granting anticipatory bail to the nces of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner does not qualify for exercising the extraordinary power by this Court in his favour. Resultantly, the present g said herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion VINOD KUMAR 2025.09.18 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-10356 10356-2025 Whether Speaking/Reasoned: Whether Reportable: - 7 - Whether Speaking/Reasoned: NO/YES NO/YES VINOD KUMAR 2025.09.18 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document