CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 205-1 (i) Saravjeet Singh @ Sarvjeet Singh @ Garry State of Haryana (ii) Taranjeet Singh @ Tarun State of Haryana CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. disposed of together, as they emanate from a common FIR. 2025 titled as Haryana. 2. Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanihta (hereinafter to be referred as ‘BNSS’ -39346-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-39346-2025 Saravjeet Singh @ Sarvjeet Singh @ Garry V/s State of Haryana CRM-M-42373-2025 Taranjeet Singh @ Tarun V/s State of Haryana CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. GBS Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-39346-2025 Mr. Raman Sihag, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-42373-2025. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Devesh Nehra, Advocate Mr. Rupender Singh, Advocate ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) By this common order, the aforesaid two petitions are being disposed of together, as they emanate from a common FIR. For brevity, the facts are be 2025 titled as Saravjeet Singh @ Sarvjeet Singh @ Garry vs. State of Haryana. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanihta (hereinafter to be referred as ’) for grant of anticipatory/pre 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 01.09.202 Saravjeet Singh @ Sarvjeet Singh @ Garry ....Petitioner ....Respondent ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Raman Sihag, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Devesh Nehra, Advocate and Mr. Rupender Singh, Advocate for the complainant. By this common order, the aforesaid two petitions are being disposed of together, as they emanate from a common FIR. the facts are being taken from CRM-M-39346 Saravjeet Singh @ Sarvjeet Singh @ Garry vs. State of has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanihta (hereinafter to be referred as ) for grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail to the petitioner(s) in .2025 Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. By this common order, the aforesaid two petitions are being 39346- Saravjeet Singh @ Sarvjeet Singh @ Garry vs. State of has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanihta (hereinafter to be referred as ail to the petitioner(s) in AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- case bearing FIR No.265 dated 19.06.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC at Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula. 3. complainant namely Malkiat Singh alleged that after a raid Enforcement Directorate (ED) on 23.01.2024 at his residence, he and his family were approached by one Tarun (PA to an MLA) ( M-42373- assured them that the ED proceedings would be dropped if they paid a sum of Rs.1.00 crore. Under pressure, the father, uncle and relatives of the complainant arranged the amount in two installments i.e. Rs.50.00 lacs handed over at village K delivered at Mohali. Subsequently, the complainant discovered that the accused Tarun and Garry (petitioners herein in both the petitions) had misappropriated officials. Thereafter, the accused started demanding an additional of Rs.8.00 crores and threatened to have the family of the complainant arrested through ED and also issuing threats to their lives. On these allegations of fraud, cheating, criminal inti trust, the FIR in question was registered and investigation ensued. 4. Sarvjeet Singh @ Garry has iterated that the instant FIR is nothing but a gross abuse of the pro motive. Learned counsel has further iterated that the allegations are highly improbable and suffer from material occurrence -39346-2025 case bearing FIR No.265 dated 19.06.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC at Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula. The gravamen of the FIR pertains to an incident in which complainant namely Malkiat Singh alleged that after a raid Enforcement Directorate (ED) on 23.01.2024 at his residence, he and his family were approached by one Tarun (PA to an MLA) ( -2025) and Garry (petitioner in CRM assured them that the ED proceedings would be dropped if they paid a sum of Rs.1.00 crore. Under pressure, the father, uncle and relatives of the complainant arranged the amount in two installments i.e. Rs.50.00 lacs handed over at village Kapuri near Ambala and another Rs.50.00 lacs delivered at Mohali. Subsequently, the complainant discovered that the accused Tarun and Garry (petitioners herein in both the petitions) had misappropriated the entire Rs.1.00 crore and had not paid anything to officials. Thereafter, the accused started demanding an additional Rs.8.00 crores and threatened to have the family of the complainant arrested through ED and also issuing threats to their lives. On these allegations of fraud, cheating, criminal inti trust, the FIR in question was registered and investigation ensued. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sarvjeet Singh @ Garry has iterated that the instant FIR is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law and has been lodged with an ulterior motive. Learned counsel has further iterated that the allegations are highly improbable and suffer from material occurrence pertains to 23.01.2024 and 24.01.2024 whereas the FIR 2 case bearing FIR No.265 dated 19.06.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC at Police Station FIR pertains to an incident in which complainant namely Malkiat Singh alleged that after a raid conducted Enforcement Directorate (ED) on 23.01.2024 at his residence, he and his family were approached by one Tarun (PA to an MLA) (petitioner in CRM 2025) and Garry (petitioner in CRM-M-39346-2025), who assured them that the ED proceedings would be dropped if they paid a sum of Rs.1.00 crore. Under pressure, the father, uncle and relatives of the complainant arranged the amount in two installments i.e. Rs.50.00 lacs apuri near Ambala and another Rs.50.00 lacs delivered at Mohali. Subsequently, the complainant discovered that the accused Tarun and Garry (petitioners herein in both the petitions) had the entire Rs.1.00 crore and had not paid anything to ED officials. Thereafter, the accused started demanding an additional amou Rs.8.00 crores and threatened to have the family of the complainant arrested through ED and also issuing threats to their lives. On these allegations of fraud, cheating, criminal intimidation and criminal breach of trust, the FIR in question was registered and investigation ensued. petitioner – Saravjeet Songh @ Sarvjeet Singh @ Garry has iterated that the instant FIR is nothing but a cess of law and has been lodged with an ulterior motive. Learned counsel has further iterated that the allegations are highly improbable and suffer from material contradictions as the alleged pertains to 23.01.2024 and 24.01.2024 whereas the FIR has been case bearing FIR No.265 dated 19.06.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC at Police Station the by Enforcement Directorate (ED) on 23.01.2024 at his residence, he and his in CRM- 2025), who assured them that the ED proceedings would be dropped if they paid a sum of Rs.1.00 crore. Under pressure, the father, uncle and relatives of the complainant arranged the amount in two installments i.e. Rs.50.00 lacs apuri near Ambala and another Rs.50.00 lacs delivered at Mohali. Subsequently, the complainant discovered that the accused Tarun and Garry (petitioners herein in both the petitions) had ED unt Rs.8.00 crores and threatened to have the family of the complainant arrested through ED and also issuing threats to their lives. On these midation and criminal breach of Saravjeet Songh @ Sarvjeet Singh @ Garry has iterated that the instant FIR is nothing but a cess of law and has been lodged with an ulterior motive. Learned counsel has further iterated that the allegations are highly as the alleged has been AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- registered only on 19.06.2025, after an unexplained and inordinate delay of about one and a half years. According to learned registration of the FIR casts a serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations. Furthermore, th nature without any cogent or corroborative material against the petitioner. In fact, the complainant himself admits that (ED) did not recove eliminating amount. Moreover, MLA, in whose presence the alleged discussion regarding initiated and a Surprisingly, despite such categorical allegations, the said MLA has not even been arrayed as an accused whereas the property dealer having no connection whatsoever with the MLA falsely implicated. It has further territorial jurisdiction inasmuch as the alleged payments were purportedly made at Ambala and Mohali yet the FIR in question has been registered at Panchkula, where no part According to learned counsel, t petitioner is at the behest of Jasmer Singh, the uncle of the complainant, with whom the petitioner has a monetary dispute. It is next submi learned counsel hence no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. 4.1. @ Tarun has iterated that t unsustainable. Learned -39346-2025 registered only on 19.06.2025, after an unexplained and inordinate delay of about one and a half years. According to learned registration of the FIR casts a serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations. Furthermore, the allegations nature without any cogent or corroborative material against the petitioner. In fact, the complainant himself admits that did not recover any objectionable document eliminating any occasion for the petitioner Moreover, the gravamen of the complaint is against Kulwant Singh, in whose presence the alleged discussion regarding initiated and at whose instance his PA (co Surprisingly, despite such categorical allegations, the said MLA has not even been arrayed as an accused whereas the property dealer having no connection whatsoever with the MLA falsely implicated. It has further been territorial jurisdiction inasmuch as the alleged payments were purportedly made at Ambala and Mohali yet the FIR in question has been registered at Panchkula, where no part of the alleged According to learned counsel, the only basis of the implication of the petitioner is at the behest of Jasmer Singh, the uncle of the complainant, with whom the petitioner has a monetary dispute. It is next submi counsel that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner @ Tarun has iterated that the present FIR is misconceived and unsustainable. Learned counsel has further iterated that 3 registered only on 19.06.2025, after an unexplained and inordinate delay of about one and a half years. According to learned counsel, such belated registration of the FIR casts a serious doubt on the veracity of the e allegations levelled are vague and general in nature without any cogent or corroborative material against the petitioner. In fact, the complainant himself admits that the Enforcement Directorate any objectionable document(s) from his house thereby the petitioner(s) to part with such a huge he gravamen of the complaint is against Kulwant Singh, in whose presence the alleged discussion regarding settlement was t whose instance his PA (co-accused) has approached. Surprisingly, despite such categorical allegations, the said MLA has not even been arrayed as an accused whereas the petitioner, who is mere a property dealer having no connection whatsoever with the MLA has been been urged that there is clear lack of territorial jurisdiction inasmuch as the alleged payments were purportedly made at Ambala and Mohali yet the FIR in question has been registered at of the alleged occurrence has taken place. he only basis of the implication of the petitioner is at the behest of Jasmer Singh, the uncle of the complainant, with whom the petitioner has a monetary dispute. It is next submitted by the ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. appearing for the petitioner – Taranjeet Singh he present FIR is misconceived and has further iterated that the alleged incident registered only on 19.06.2025, after an unexplained and inordinate delay of , such belated registration of the FIR casts a serious doubt on the veracity of the are vague and general in nature without any cogent or corroborative material against the petitioner. Enforcement Directorate from his house thereby to part with such a huge he gravamen of the complaint is against Kulwant Singh, was as approached. Surprisingly, despite such categorical allegations, the said MLA has not , who is mere a has been there is clear lack of territorial jurisdiction inasmuch as the alleged payments were purportedly made at Ambala and Mohali yet the FIR in question has been registered at has taken place. he only basis of the implication of the petitioner is at the behest of Jasmer Singh, the uncle of the complainant, tted by the ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. Taranjeet Singh he present FIR is misconceived and alleged incident AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- pertains to 23.01.2024 and 24.01.2024, whereas the registered belatedly on 19.06.2025, after an unexplained delay of one and half years which, by itself, renders the case of the prosecution doubtful. Learned petitioner complainant himself admits th Directorate and, therefore, there could be no money from the complainant. Learned allegations, if at all, is against MLA Kulwant Singh, at whose behest the father and relative of the complainant allegedly approached his P.A. According to learned an accused while the petitioner, who is nei MLA has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Lastly, it has been submitted by the learned and has no connection with any alleged dealings of the MLA and has bee falsely roped into the FIR in question. It is, thus, submitted by the learned counsel that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would amount to sheer abuse of the process of law. petition(s) 5. anticipatory bail by arguing that petitioner(s) are serious in nature. Referring to reply dated 30.07.2025, learned State counsel has of serious offences involving criminal -39346-2025 pertains to 23.01.2024 and 24.01.2024, whereas the registered belatedly on 19.06.2025, after an unexplained delay of one and half years which, by itself, renders the case of the prosecution doubtful. Learned counsel has further contended that the allegations petitioner are vague and bereft of any cogent evidence. In fact, the complainant himself admits that during Directorate (ED), no objectionable documents and, therefore, there could be no occasion money from the complainant. Learned counsel ations, if at all, is against MLA Kulwant Singh, at whose behest the father and relative of the complainant allegedly approached his P.A. According to learned counsel, the said MLA has not even been arraigned as an accused while the petitioner, who is nei MLA has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Lastly, it has been submitted by the learned counsel that the and has no connection with any alleged dealings of the MLA and has bee falsely roped into the FIR in question. It is, thus, submitted by the learned that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would amount to sheer abuse of the process of law. On the basis of aforementioned submissions, the (s) in hand is entreated for. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail by arguing that the petitioner(s) are serious in nature. Referring to reply dated 30.07.2025, learned State counsel has submitted that the FIR disclose of serious offences involving criminal conspiracy 4 pertains to 23.01.2024 and 24.01.2024, whereas the impugned FIR was registered belatedly on 19.06.2025, after an unexplained delay of one and half years which, by itself, renders the case of the prosecution doubtful. has further contended that the allegations against the are vague and bereft of any cogent evidence. In fact, the at during the raid by the Enforcement documents or material was recovered occasion for the petitioner to part with any counsel emphasized that the primary ations, if at all, is against MLA Kulwant Singh, at whose behest the father and relative of the complainant allegedly approached his P.A. , the said MLA has not even been arraigned as an accused while the petitioner, who is neither the P.A. nor the agent of the MLA has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Lastly, it has that the petitioner is a social worker and has no connection with any alleged dealings of the MLA and has bee falsely roped into the FIR in question. It is, thus, submitted by the learned that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would amount to sheer abuse of the process of law. On the basis of aforementioned submissions, the grant of learned State counsel has opposed the grant of the allegations raised against the petitioner(s) are serious in nature. Referring to reply dated 30.07.2025, that the FIR discloses the commission conspiracy, cheating and extortion o FIR was registered belatedly on 19.06.2025, after an unexplained delay of one and half years which, by itself, renders the case of the prosecution doubtful. against the are vague and bereft of any cogent evidence. In fact, the cement or material was recovered for the petitioner to part with any emphasized that the primary ations, if at all, is against MLA Kulwant Singh, at whose behest the father and relative of the complainant allegedly approached his P.A. , the said MLA has not even been arraigned as ther the P.A. nor the agent of the MLA has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Lastly, it has is a social worker and has no connection with any alleged dealings of the MLA and has been falsely roped into the FIR in question. It is, thus, submitted by the learned that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would the learned State counsel has opposed the grant of allegations raised against the petitioner(s) are serious in nature. Referring to reply dated 30.07.2025, commission , cheating and extortion of AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- huge sum i.e. pretext of settling proceedings with the Enforcement Directorate. The role of both the petitioner(s), is specifically attributed in the FIR, wherein it is categorically stated th 23.01.2024 at village Kapuri (Ambala) and another Rs.50.00 lacs on 24.01.2024 at Mohali. These specific averments the petitioners FIR discloses a cognizable offence and the investigation is necessary to bring out the truth. The plea of false implication raised by the petitioner is a matter of defence which cannot be gone into at this stage. Given these circumstan indispensable for a fair and effective investigation. Therefore, it is submitted that both the petitions are devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. opposed the instant counsel. He has further contended that mere delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal at the stage of investigation transaction involving threats, coercion and pressure of ED proceedings. According to learned senior counsel, the offence alleged involves cheating, criminal breach of trust and extortion of a very high magnitude thereby warranting custodial the dismissal of the instant petition is canvassed for. 7. through the available record of the case. -39346-2025 huge sum i.e. Rs.1.00 crore, from the complainant and his family under the pretext of settling proceedings with the Enforcement Directorate. The role of both the petitioner(s), is specifically attributed in the FIR, wherein it is categorically stated that both the petitioner received Rs.50.00 lacs each on 23.01.2024 at village Kapuri (Ambala) and another Rs.50.00 lacs on 24.01.2024 at Mohali. These specific averments petitioners with the alleged fraud. It has been further su FIR discloses a cognizable offence and the investigation is necessary to bring out the truth. The plea of false implication raised by the petitioner is a matter of defence which cannot be gone into at this stage. Given these circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner(s) is indispensable for a fair and effective investigation. Therefore, it is submitted that both the petitions are devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Learned senior counsel for the complainant has vociferously opposed the instant petition by raising submission in tandem with the State . He has further contended that mere delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal at the stage of investigation especially transaction involving threats, coercion and pressure of ED proceedings. According to learned senior counsel, the offence alleged involves cheating, criminal breach of trust and extortion of a very high magnitude thereby warranting custodial interrogation of the petitioner(s). the dismissal of the instant petition is canvassed for. I have heard learned counsel through the available record of the case. 5 from the complainant and his family under the pretext of settling proceedings with the Enforcement Directorate. The role of both the petitioner(s), is specifically attributed in the FIR, wherein it is at both the petitioner received Rs.50.00 lacs each on 23.01.2024 at village Kapuri (Ambala) and another Rs.50.00 lacs on 24.01.2024 at Mohali. These specific averments prima facie connect both with the alleged fraud. It has been further submitted that the FIR discloses a cognizable offence and the investigation is necessary to bring out the truth. The plea of false implication raised by the petitioner is a matter of defence which cannot be gone into at this stage. Given these , the custodial interrogation of the petitioner(s) is indispensable for a fair and effective investigation. Therefore, it is submitted that both the petitions are devoid of merit and is liable to be for the complainant has vociferously by raising submission in tandem with the State . He has further contended that mere delay in lodging the FIR is not especially when the allegations pertain to a transaction involving threats, coercion and pressure of ED proceedings. According to learned senior counsel, the offence alleged involves cheating, criminal breach of trust and extortion of a very high magnitude thereby interrogation of the petitioner(s). On these grounds, the dismissal of the instant petition is canvassed for. counsel for the rival parties and have gone from the complainant and his family under the pretext of settling proceedings with the Enforcement Directorate. The role of both the petitioner(s), is specifically attributed in the FIR, wherein it is at both the petitioner received Rs.50.00 lacs each on 23.01.2024 at village Kapuri (Ambala) and another Rs.50.00 lacs on connect both bmitted that the FIR discloses a cognizable offence and the investigation is necessary to bring out the truth. The plea of false implication raised by the petitioner(s) is a matter of defence which cannot be gone into at this stage. Given these , the custodial interrogation of the petitioner(s) is indispensable for a fair and effective investigation. Therefore, it is submitted that both the petitions are devoid of merit and is liable to be for the complainant has vociferously by raising submission in tandem with the State . He has further contended that mere delay in lodging the FIR is not ns pertain to a transaction involving threats, coercion and pressure of ED proceedings. According to learned senior counsel, the offence alleged involves cheating, criminal breach of trust and extortion of a very high magnitude thereby On these grounds, rival parties and have gone AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 8. serious allegations emerges from the record that the FIR contains specific and direct allegations against both the petitioner substantial amount of money under the pretext of shielding from the ED proceedings. Whether such allegations are ultimately proved or not are a matter of trial and cannot be pre 9. registration anticipatory bail when the allegations involve large coupled with threats and misuse of official influence. The the MLA as an ac made against the petitioner the petitioner question(s) BNSS. The allegations in both the petitioners are alleged to have dishonestly induced the family of the complainant to part with Rs.1.00 core in cash of influencing ED proceedings. The allegations are specific with regard to dates, places and amounts. extraordinary relief and is not to be granted as a matter of right, particularly in cases involving serious economic offences and allegations of extortion. 10. alleged threats extended to the complainant and his family necessitates a thorough investigation for which custodial inter petitioners -39346-2025 As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against both the petitioner emerges from the record that the FIR contains specific and direct allegations against both the petitioner(s) regarding the demand and receipt of substantial amount of money under the pretext of shielding from the ED proceedings. Whether such allegations are ultimately proved or not are a matter of trial and cannot be pre The contentions regarding delay i registration of the FIR cannot be considered a ground for grant of anticipatory bail when the allegations involve large coupled with threats and misuse of official influence. The the MLA as an accused also does not dilute the allegations specifically made against the petitioner(s). The plea of false implication raised by both petitioner(s) is essentially a matter of defence (s) of fact cannot be adjudicated BNSS. The allegations in the FIR are grave and serious in nature oth the petitioners are alleged to have dishonestly induced the family of the complainant to part with Rs.1.00 core in cash of influencing ED proceedings. The allegations are specific with regard to dates, places and amounts. It is trite law that the anticipatory bail is an extraordinary relief and is not to be granted as a matter of right, particularly ses involving serious economic offences and allegations of extortion. The magnitude of the offence, the amount involved and the alleged threats extended to the complainant and his family necessitates a thorough investigation for which custodial inter petitioners may be required. The role of both the petitioners cannot be 6 n the FIR in question, indubitably, against both the petitioner(s). It emerges from the record that the FIR contains specific and direct allegations regarding the demand and receipt of substantial amount of money under the pretext of shielding the complainant from the ED proceedings. Whether such allegations are ultimately proved or not are a matter of trial and cannot be pre-judged at this stage. The contentions regarding delay in lodging the FIR in of the FIR cannot be considered a ground for grant of anticipatory bail when the allegations involve large-scale monetary fraud coupled with threats and misuse of official influence. The omission to array cused also does not dilute the allegations specifically . The plea of false implication raised by both is essentially a matter of defence and such disputed in a petition under Section 482 of FIR are grave and serious in nature wherein oth the petitioners are alleged to have dishonestly induced the family of the complainant to part with Rs.1.00 core in cash/bank transfer under the pretext of influencing ED proceedings. The allegations are specific with regard to It is trite law that the anticipatory bail is an extraordinary relief and is not to be granted as a matter of right, particularly ses involving serious economic offences and allegations of extortion. The magnitude of the offence, the amount involved and the alleged threats extended to the complainant and his family necessitates a thorough investigation for which custodial interrogation of both the be required. The role of both the petitioners cannot be n the FIR in question, indubitably, . It emerges from the record that the FIR contains specific and direct allegations regarding the demand and receipt of complainant from the ED proceedings. Whether such allegations are ultimately proved n lodging the FIR in of the FIR cannot be considered a ground for grant of scale monetary fraud to array cused also does not dilute the allegations specifically . The plea of false implication raised by both uch disputed ion under Section 482 of wherein oth the petitioners are alleged to have dishonestly induced the family of the under the pretext of influencing ED proceedings. The allegations are specific with regard to It is trite law that the anticipatory bail is an extraordinary relief and is not to be granted as a matter of right, particularly ses involving serious economic offences and allegations of extortion. The magnitude of the offence, the amount involved and the alleged threats extended to the complainant and his family necessitates a rogation of both the be required. The role of both the petitioners cannot be AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- brushed aside at this preliminary stage. record and preliminary investigation, appear for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner(s), as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ti (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] under : (SCC p. and the requirement of to grant anticipatory bail to the impediment 11. craves attention of this Court. of a complaint ma -39346-2025 brushed aside at this preliminary stage. record and preliminary investigation, appear accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner(s), as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. A profitable reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ti (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] 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 case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected pe 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 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 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. Considering the gravity of allegations, the nature of the offence and the requirement of investigation to elicit the truth, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner impediment in effective investigation. There is yet another aspect nay craves attention of this Court. The FIR in question was registered on 19.06.2025 on the basis of a complaint made to the Police vide Diary No. 1215 7 brushed aside at this preliminary stage. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to establish a reasonable basis accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner(s), as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective A profitable reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court held as submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is oriented than questioning a suspect who is 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 the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre l 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 ffences would not conduct themselves as offenders.” Considering the gravity of allegations, the nature of the offence to elicit the truth, it is not appropriate petitioner(s) as it would necessarily cause nay vital aspect of the matter which The FIR in question was registered on 19.06.2025 on the basis de to the Police vide Diary No. 1215-PW dated The material which has come on a reasonable basis accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner(s), as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective A profitable reference in this regard can be made to the v. Anil Sharma, e Court held as submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is oriented than questioning a suspect who is of the Code. In a 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- l 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 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 Considering the gravity of allegations, the nature of the offence to elicit the truth, it is not appropriate as it would necessarily cause vital aspect of the matter which The FIR in question was registered on 19.06.2025 on the basis PW dated AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 23.10.2024. The factual remained pending before the Police authority(s) for a period of about 08 months before culminating into FIR. 11.1 judgment passed by Five Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. and others 524, relevant whereof reads thus: -39346-2025 23.10.2024. The factual milieu, indubitably, reflects that the remained pending before the Police authority(s) for a period of about 08 before culminating into FIR. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by Five Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. and others relevant whereof reads thus: “111. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. ii) If the information received does not offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. vi) As to what type and in which cases conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes b) Commercial offences c) Medical negligence cases d) Corruption cases 8 , indubitably, reflects that the said complaint remained pending before the Police authority(s) for a period of about 08 ure, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by Five Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. and others, 2014(1) SCC (CRI) iscussion, we hold: i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, IR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the mplaint and not proceeding further. iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received cognizable offence. v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes negligence cases complaint remained pending before the Police authority(s) for a period of about 08 ure, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by Five Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 2014(1) SCC (CRI) i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, IR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- Supreme Court, the above judgment dated 12.11.2013 was modified as follows: “(vii) complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made it should not exceed fifteen days generally and in exceptional cases, by giving adequate reasons, six weeks time is provided. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.”” 11.2 Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 are powers which are unbridled, unfettered and plenary in nature aimed at securing the ends of justice. The inherent powers of a High Court are powers which are incidenta did not so exist, the Court would be obliged to sit still and helplessly see the -39346-2025 e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are onl of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exc such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.” Further, vide order dated 05.03.2014 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the above judgment dated 12.11.2013 was modified as “2. After hearing him and in the light of the grievance expressed in the present criminal miscellaneous petition file modify clause (vii) of paragraph 111 of our judgment dated 12 November, 2013, in the following manner: (vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights for the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made it should not exceed fifteen days generally and in exceptional cases, by giving adequate reasons, six weeks time is provided. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.”” There is no gainsaying that the powers of the High Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 are powers which are unbridled, unfettered and plenary in nature aimed at securing the ends of justice. The inherent powers of a High Court are powers which are incidenta did not so exist, the Court would be obliged to sit still and helplessly see the 9 e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct ating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, vide order dated 05.03.2014 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the above judgment dated 12.11.2013 was modified as After hearing him and in the light of the grievance expressed in the present criminal miscellaneous petition filed in the writ petition, we modify clause (vii) of paragraph 111 of our judgment dated 12 November, 2013, in the following manner: While ensuring and protecting the rights for the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed fifteen days generally and in exceptional cases, by giving adequate reasons, six weeks time is provided. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.”” e is no gainsaying that the powers of the High Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 are powers which are unbridled, unfettered and plenary in nature aimed at securing the ends of justice. The inherent powers of a High Court are powers which are incidental replete powers, which if did not so exist, the Court would be obliged to sit still and helplessly see the e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons y illustrations and not exhaustive vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time eed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct ating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, vide order dated 05.03.2014 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the above judgment dated 12.11.2013 was modified as After hearing him and in the light of the grievance expressed in d in the writ petition, we modify clause (vii) of paragraph 111 of our judgment dated 12th While ensuring and protecting the rights for the accused and the time bound and in any case it should not exceed fifteen days generally and in exceptional cases, by giving adequate reasons, six weeks time is provided. The fact of such delay and the e is no gainsaying that the powers of the High Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 are powers which are unbridled, unfettered and plenary in nature aimed at securing the ends of justice. The inherent powers l replete powers, which if did not so exist, the Court would be obliged to sit still and helplessly see the AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- process of law and Courts being abused for the purposes of injustice. In other words; such power(s) is intrinsic to a High Court, it is its very lif blood, its very essence, its immanent attribute. Without such power(s), a High Court would have form but lack the substance. These powers of a High Court hence deserve to be construed with the widest possible amplitude. These inherent powers a High Court which ought to be, and has in fact been, invested with power(s) to maintain its authority to prevent the process of law/Courts being obstructed or abused. It is a trite posit of jurisprudence that though law attempt to deal with all cases that may arise, the infinite variety of circumstances which shape events and the imperfections of language make it impossible to lay down provisions capable of governing every case, which in fact arises. A High Court which indefatigable manner, should therefore, have unfettered power(s) to deal with situations which, though not expressly provided for by the law, need to be dealt with, to prevent injustice or the abuse of the proces Courts. The juridical basis of these plenary power(s) is the authority; in fact the seminal duty and responsibility of a High Court; to uphold, to protect and to fulfill the judicial function of administering justice, in accordance with law, Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 reflects peerless powers, which a High Court may draw upon as necessary whenever it is just and equitable to do so, in particular to ensure the observance of the due pro vexation or oppression, to do justice parties and to secure the ends of justice. -39346-2025 process of law and Courts being abused for the purposes of injustice. In other words; such power(s) is intrinsic to a High Court, it is its very lif blood, its very essence, its immanent attribute. Without such power(s), a High Court would have form but lack the substance. These powers of a High Court hence deserve to be construed with the widest possible amplitude. These inherent powers are in consonance with the nature of a High Court which ought to be, and has in fact been, invested with power(s) to maintain its authority to prevent the process of law/Courts being obstructed or abused. It is a trite posit of jurisprudence that though law attempt to deal with all cases that may arise, the infinite variety of circumstances which shape events and the imperfections of language make it impossible to lay down provisions capable of governing every case, which in fact arises. A High Court which exists for the furtherance of justice in an indefatigable manner, should therefore, have unfettered power(s) to deal with situations which, though not expressly provided for by the law, need to be dealt with, to prevent injustice or the abuse of the proces Courts. The juridical basis of these plenary power(s) is the authority; in fact the seminal duty and responsibility of a High Court; to uphold, to protect and to fulfill the judicial function of administering justice, in accordance with law, in a regular, orderly and effective manner. In other words; Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 reflects peerless powers, which a High Court may draw upon as necessary whenever it is just and equitable to do so, in particular to ensure the observance of the due pro vexation or oppression, to do justice nay parties and to secure the ends of justice. 10 process of law and Courts being abused for the purposes of injustice. In other words; such power(s) is intrinsic to a High Court, it is its very lif blood, its very essence, its immanent attribute. Without such power(s), a High Court would have form but lack the substance. These powers of a High Court hence deserve to be construed with the widest possible re in consonance with the nature of a High Court which ought to be, and has in fact been, invested with power(s) to maintain its authority to prevent the process of law/Courts being obstructed or abused. It is a trite posit of jurisprudence that though law attempt to deal with all cases that may arise, the infinite variety of circumstances which shape events and the imperfections of language make it impossible to lay down provisions capable of governing every case, which exists for the furtherance of justice in an indefatigable manner, should therefore, have unfettered power(s) to deal with situations which, though not expressly provided for by the law, need to be dealt with, to prevent injustice or the abuse of the process of law and Courts. The juridical basis of these plenary power(s) is the authority; in fact the seminal duty and responsibility of a High Court; to uphold, to protect and to fulfill the judicial function of administering justice, in accordance in a regular, orderly and effective manner. In other words; Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 reflects peerless powers, which a High Court may draw upon as necessary whenever it is just and equitable to do so, in particular to ensure the observance of the due process of law, to prevent nay substantial justice between the parties and to secure the ends of justice. process of law and Courts being abused for the purposes of injustice. In other words; such power(s) is intrinsic to a High Court, it is its very life- blood, its very essence, its immanent attribute. Without such power(s), a High Court would have form but lack the substance. These powers of a High Court hence deserve to be construed with the widest possible re in consonance with the nature of a High Court which ought to be, and has in fact been, invested with power(s) to maintain its authority to prevent the process of law/Courts being obstructed or abused. It is a trite posit of jurisprudence that though laws attempt to deal with all cases that may arise, the infinite variety of circumstances which shape events and the imperfections of language make it impossible to lay down provisions capable of governing every case, which exists for the furtherance of justice in an indefatigable manner, should therefore, have unfettered power(s) to deal with situations which, though not expressly provided for by the law, need to s of law and Courts. The juridical basis of these plenary power(s) is the authority; in fact the seminal duty and responsibility of a High Court; to uphold, to protect and to fulfill the judicial function of administering justice, in accordance in a regular, orderly and effective manner. In other words; Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 reflects peerless powers, which a High Court may draw upon as necessary whenever it is just and equitable to do so, in cess of law, to prevent substantial justice between the AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dubey vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2023 AIR Supreme Court 3263 -39346-2025 At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dubey vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2023 AIR Supreme Court 3263, relevant whereof reads thus: “10. Having given the matter our anxious and thoughtful consideration, though the appellant may have a point that, stricto sens in a petition under Section 439 of the Code, the concerned Court ought not to travel beyond considering the specific issue viz. whether to grant bail or reject bail to an accused in custody, it cannot be lost sight of that the Court concerned herein was Court for the State of Madhya Pradesh, established under the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the “Constitution”). 11. This singular fact, for reasons elaborated hereinafter, leads us to decline interfering with the Impugned Judgment, but for different reasons. We have no hesitation in stating that had the Impugned Judgment been rendered by a Court of Session, the factors that would ha us would be starkly different. 12. A little digression is necessitated. The High Court is a Constitutional Court, possessing a wide repertoire of powers. The High Court has original, appellate and suo motu powers under 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The powers under 226 and 227 of the Constitution are meant for taking care of situations where the High Court feels that some direction(s)/order(s) are required in the interest of justice. Recently, in India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 413, the present coram had the occasion to hold as under: “50. Article 226 of the Constitution is a succour to remedy injustice, and any limit on exercise of such imposed. Gainful refer- ence can be made to, amongst Venkateswaran v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani 573 and U P State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Kamal Swaroop Tandon, (2008) 2 SCC 41. Constitutional scheme, are endowed with the ability to issue prerogative writs to safeguard rights of citizens. For ex reason, this Court has nev that can be said to have “cribbed, cabined and confined” [to borrow the term employed by the Hon. Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) in E P Royappa v. State of Tamil 11 At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Dubey vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2023 AIR Supreme Having given the matter our anxious and thoughtful consideration, though the appellant may have a point that, stricto sens in a petition under Section 439 of the Code, the concerned Court ought not to travel beyond considering the specific issue viz. whether to grant bail or reject bail to an accused in custody, it cannot be lost sight of that the Court concerned herein was not a ‘Court of Session’ but the High Court for the State of Madhya Pradesh, established under Article 214 the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the “Constitution”). fact, for reasons elaborated hereinafter, leads us to decline interfering with the Impugned Judgment, but for different reasons. no hesitation in stating that had the Impugned Judgment been rendered by a Court of Session, the factors that would have weighed with A little digression is necessitated. The High Court is a Constitutional Court, possessing a wide repertoire of powers. The High Court has original, appellate and suo motu powers under Articles of the Constitution. The powers under Articles of the Constitution are meant for taking care of situations where the High Court feels that some direction(s)/order(s) are required in the interest of justice. Recently, in B S Hari Commandant v Union of , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 413, the present coram had the occasion to of the Constitution is a succour to remedy injustice, and any limit on exercise of such power, is only self ence can be made to, amongst others, A V Venkateswaran v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani, (1962) 1 SCR State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Kamal Swaroop , (2008) 2 SCC 41. The High Courts, under the Constitutional scheme, are endowed with the ability to issue prerogative writs to safeguard rights of citizens. For ex- actly this reason, this Court has never laid down any strait-jacket principles have “cribbed, cabined and confined” [to borrow the term employed by the Hon. Bhagwati, J. (as he then E P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3 : AIR At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a Sanjay Dubey vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2023 AIR Supreme Having given the matter our anxious and thoughtful consideration, though the appellant may have a point that, stricto sensu, in a petition under Section 439 of the Code, the concerned Court ought not to travel beyond considering the specific issue viz. whether to grant bail or reject bail to an accused in custody, it cannot be lost sight of that not a ‘Court of Session’ but the High Article 214 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the “Constitution”). fact, for reasons elaborated hereinafter, leads us to decline interfering with the Impugned Judgment, but for different reasons. no hesitation in stating that had the Impugned Judgment been ve weighed with A little digression is necessitated. The High Court is a Constitutional Court, possessing a wide repertoire of powers. The High Articles Articles of the Constitution are meant for taking care of situations where the High Court feels that some direction(s)/order(s) are required in t v Union of , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 413, the present coram had the occasion to of the Constitution is a succour to remedy power, is only self- others, A V 1962) 1 SCR State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Kamal Swaroop The High Courts, under the Constitutional scheme, are endowed with the ability to issue actly this jacket principles have “cribbed, cabined and confined” [to borrow the term employed by the Hon. Bhagwati, J. (as he then , (1974) 4 SCC 3 : AIR AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 11.3 violation and derogation of the mandate of explained by way of an affidavit dated 30.07.2025 explanation The conduct appears to reflect stolid affidavit dated 23.08.2025 filed by Smt. Srishti Gupta, IPS, DCP, Panchkula, the details of Police Officers who have de before the registration of the FIR -39346-2025 1974 SC 555] the extraordinary powers vested under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution. Shaqafath Ali Khan (supra), this was a fit case for the High Court to have examined the matter threadbare, involve navigating a factual minefield.”) 13. Returning to the present case, though usually the proper course of action of the High Court ought to have been to confine itself to the acceptance/rejection of the prayer for bail made Section 439 of the Code; however the High Court, being satisfied that there were, in its opinion, grave lapses on the part of the police/investigative machinery, which may have fatal consequences on the justice delivery system, could not have simply shut its eyes.” The hiatus of about 08 months, which appears to be in clear violation and derogation of the mandate of explained by way of an affidavit dated 30.07.2025 explanation nay plausible explanation forthcoming The conduct appears to reflect stolid nay affidavit dated 23.08.2025 filed by Smt. Srishti Gupta, IPS, DCP, Panchkula, the details of Police Officers who have de before the registration of the FIR, for this period of 08 months, “ Sr. No. Rank Official/Officer Name 1. SI Sh. Parkash Chand (Enquiry Officer) 2. Insp. Sh. Kamaljeet Singh (Incharge EOW) 3. Insp. Sh. Hitender Singh (Incharge EOW) 4. ACP Sh. Manpreet Singh, IPS (Supervisory Officer of EOW) 5. ACP Sh. Vikram (Supervisory Officer of EOW) 6. ACP Sh. Surender Singh, HPS (Supervisory Officer of EOW being link officer of 12 1974 SC 555] the extraordinary powers vested under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution. Adjudged on the anvil of Nawab Shaqafath Ali Khan (supra), this was a fit case for the High Court to have examined the matter threadbare, more so, when it did not involve navigating a factual minefield.”) 13. Returning to the present case, though usually the proper course of action of the High Court ought to have been to confine itself to the acceptance/rejection of the prayer for bail made by the accused under Section 439 of the Code; however the High Court, being satisfied that there were, in its opinion, grave lapses on the part of the police/investigative machinery, which may have fatal consequences on the not have simply shut its eyes.” of about 08 months, which appears to be in clear violation and derogation of the mandate of law, has been sought to be explained by way of an affidavit dated 30.07.2025. There appears to be no forthcoming for this inordinate delay. nay recalcitrant one. By way of an affidavit dated 23.08.2025 filed by Smt. Srishti Gupta, IPS, DCP, Panchkula, the details of Police Officers who have dealt with the complaint , for this period of 08 months, reads thus: Official/Officer Name Period of posting between 23.10.2024 to 19.06.2025 Sh. Parkash Chand (Enquiry Officer) 23.10.2024 to 19.06.2025 Sh. Kamaljeet Singh (Incharge EOW) 23.10.2024 to 02.06.2025 Sh. Hitender Singh (Incharge EOW) 02.06.2025 to 19.06.2025 Sh. Manpreet Singh, IPS (Supervisory Officer of 23.10.23024 to 18.02.2025 Sh. Vikram Nehra, HPS (Supervisory Officer of 18.02.2025 to 01.04.2025 03.05.2025 to 19.06.2025 Sh. Surender Singh, HPS (Supervisory Officer of EOW being link officer of 02.04.2025 to 02.05.2025 1974 SC 555] the extraordinary powers vested under Articles 226 Adjudged on the anvil of Nawab Shaqafath Ali Khan (supra), this was a fit case for the High Court more so, when it did not 13. Returning to the present case, though usually the proper course of action of the High Court ought to have been to confine itself to the by the accused under Section 439 of the Code; however the High Court, being satisfied that there were, in its opinion, grave lapses on the part of the police/investigative machinery, which may have fatal consequences on the of about 08 months, which appears to be in clear has been sought to be There appears to be no for this inordinate delay. y way of an affidavit dated 23.08.2025 filed by Smt. Srishti Gupta, IPS, DCP, alt with the complaint reads thus: Period of posting between 23.10.2024 to 23.10.2024 to 23.10.2024 to 02.06.2025 to 23.10.23024 to 18.02.2025 to 03.05.2025 to 02.04.2025 to AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- reflects that all police officers, other than Smt. Srishti Gupta, had dealt with the complaint for multiple weeks. Smt. Srishti Gupta, came to be posted as DCP Panchkula on 04.06.2025 whereas the FIR in question was registered on 19.06.2025. when viewed in background of her coming on 04.06.2025 only whereas the complaint in question was pending with Police authority(s) since 23.10.2024 Ergo, it appears that there is presence of bona fide at her end. However, no plausible police officers This Court principles of natural justice especially principle of yet been afforded to the concerned police officers. Court cannot turn Nelson’s eye to the pending with the police months, especially in backdrop of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court -39346-2025 Sh. Vikram Nehra as he went on training on 01.04.2025) 7. DCP Ms. Himadree Kaushik, IPS 8. DCP Ms. Srishti Gupta, IPS 9. CP Sh. Sibash Kabiraj, IPS, IGP Ambala Range (Addl. Charge of CP, Panchkula) 10. CP Sh. Rakesh Kumar Arya, IPS 11. CP Sh. Sibash Kabiraj, IPS Further, a perusal of the affidavit reflects that all police officers, other than Smt. Srishti Gupta, had dealt with the complaint for multiple weeks. Smt. Srishti Gupta, came to be posted as DCP Panchkula on 04.06.2025 whereas the FIR in question was registered on 19.06.2025. Her working and conduct when viewed in background of her coming on 04.06.2025 only whereas the complaint in question was pending with Police authority(s) since 23.10.2024 and it appears that there is presence of bona fide at her end. However, no plausible cause is decipherable, for the nonce, police officers from the material presently brought forth before this Court. his Court also cannot loose sight of the fact that principles of natural justice especially principle of yet been afforded to the concerned police officers. In the totality of the factual Court cannot turn Nelson’s eye to the pending with the police officers for an inordinate time period of about 08 , especially in backdrop of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court 13 Sh. Vikram Nehra as he went on training on 01.04.2025) Ms. Himadree Kaushik, 23.10.2024 to 03.06.2025 Ms. Srishti Gupta, IPS 04.06.2025 to 19.06.2025 Sh. Sibash Kabiraj, IPS, IGP Ambala Range (Addl. Charge of CP, Panchkula) 23.10.2024 to 01.11.2024 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Arya, 01.11.2024 to 23.04.2025 Sh. Sibash Kabiraj, IPS 23.04.2025 to 19.06.2025 Further, a perusal of the affidavit dated 23.08.2025 (ibid) reflects that all police officers, other than Smt. Srishti Gupta, had dealt with the complaint for multiple weeks. Smt. Srishti Gupta, came to be posted as DCP Panchkula on 04.06.2025 whereas the FIR in question was registered and conduct does reflect legit, especially, when viewed in background of her coming to be posted as DCP (Panchkula on 04.06.2025 only whereas the complaint in question was pending with and FIR was registered on 19.06.2025 it appears that there is presence of bona fide at her end. However, no nonce, at the end of other concerned from the material presently brought forth before this Court. annot loose sight of the fact that no opportunity, in terms of principles of natural justice especially principle of audi alteram partem, has yet been afforded to the concerned police officers. In the totality of the factual milieu of the case in hand, this Court cannot turn Nelson’s eye to the malady of complaint remaining for an inordinate time period of about 08 , especially in backdrop of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court 23.10.2024 to 04.06.2025 to 23.10.2024 to 01.11.2024 to 23.04.2025 to ibid) reflects that all police officers, other than Smt. Srishti Gupta, had dealt with the complaint for multiple weeks. Smt. Srishti Gupta, came to be posted as DCP Panchkula on 04.06.2025 whereas the FIR in question was registered , especially, Panchkula) on 04.06.2025 only whereas the complaint in question was pending with 025. it appears that there is presence of bona fide at her end. However, no at the end of other concerned from the material presently brought forth before this Court. no opportunity, in terms of has , this remaining for an inordinate time period of about 08 , especially in backdrop of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- in case of especially Section 175 thereof. the instan matter, in 3. I. merits and are hereby dismissed. Nothing sa to be an expression of opinion upon the merits of the case/investigation. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. II. referred to in paragraph posted as DCP, Panchkula), especially in backdrop of the statutory mandate contained in Section 175 of BNSS & judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of (CRI) 524. and list the same Hon’ble the Chief Justice. September 01 Ajay -39346-2025 in case of Lalita Kumari (supra) and statutory mandate contained in BNSS, pecially Section 175 thereof. However, nt case, this Court does not dee n the instant petition. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: Both the petitions seeking anticipatory bail are, thus, devoid of merits and are hereby dismissed. Nothing sa to be an expression of opinion upon the merits of the case/investigation. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Proceedings need to be drawn against the police officers referred to in paragraph 12.3 ibid, other than Smt. Shrishti Gupta (presently posted as DCP, Panchkula), especially in backdrop of the statutory mandate contained in Section 175 of BNSS & judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. and others (CRI) 524. Registry is directed to register a separate petition in this regard list the same accordingly, after obtaining appropriate orders from Hon’ble the Chief Justice. September 01, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 14 nd statutory mandate contained in BNSS, , in the totality of factual milieu em it appropriate to delve into t In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: Both the petitions seeking anticipatory bail are, thus, devoid of merits and are hereby dismissed. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon the merits of the case/investigation. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Proceedings need to be drawn against the police officers , other than Smt. Shrishti Gupta (presently posted as DCP, Panchkula), especially in backdrop of the statutory mandate contained in Section 175 of BNSS & judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. and others, 2014(1) SCC Registry is directed to register a separate petition in this regard after obtaining appropriate orders from (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No nd statutory mandate contained in BNSS, u of this Both the petitions seeking anticipatory bail are, thus, devoid of id hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon the merits of the case/investigation. Proceedings need to be drawn against the police officers , other than Smt. Shrishti Gupta (presently posted as DCP, Panchkula), especially in backdrop of the statutory mandate contained in Section 175 of BNSS & judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme 2014(1) SCC Registry is directed to register a separate petition in this regard after obtaining appropriate orders from AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document