CRM-M-30797-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 216 CRM-M-30797-2026 (O&M) Date of decision:23.07.2026 Narender Kumar Jindal ... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate and Mr. Favi Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. ... Manisha Batra, J. (Oral). 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking benefit of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.101, dated 10.05.2024, registered under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act (charge framed under Section 61(1)(a), (b) of the Excise Act and Section 120-B of IPC, at Police Station Dhauj, District Faridabad. 2. As per the allegations, on receipt of a secret information on 10.05.2024, a barricade was laid and a vehicle bearing registration No.DL-2C-Q-4038 was stopped on the barricade. On conducting search of the vehicle, 4400 bottles of country made liquor brand 'Rasila Santra' were found kept in several boxes in the said vehicle, which were taken HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.24 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30797-2026 (O&M) -2- into possession by the police. The driver of the said vehicle disclosed his name as Bablu. He was formally arrested. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement to the effect that the recovered bottles were purchased by accused Ram Bharose and Aman from the present petitioner, who was running a liquor vend and the same were handed over to him. Offence under Section 120-B IPC was added. The petitioner and above named two persons were nominated as accused. Apprehending his arrest, petitioner moved an application for grant of pre-arrest bail, which had been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide order dated 18.05.2026. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He was not named in the FIR. He was a liquor vend holder under the valid license under the provisions of the Excise Act at the relevant time and no irregularity was found in carrying out his business by him. He had neither any connection with the car from where the recovery was effected nor with the co-accused Bablu. There is no material on record to connect him with the commission of subject offences. He is ready to join the investigation. No recovery is to be effected from him. His custodial interrogation is not required. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be released on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for conducting thorough and proper investigation in the matter. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.24 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30797-2026 (O&M) -3- does not deserve to be allowed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. The petitioner was not named in the FIR. Admittedly, he was owning some liquor vends at the time of occurrence. He has been nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Bablu, the veracity of which is to be tested during the course of trial. It is not the allegation against him that he had sold the liquor in an illicit manner to co-accused Bablu. Taking into consideration the nature of allegations as levelled against the petitioner and the circumstances peculiar to this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that pre-trial incarceration of the petitioner is not required. It is well settled proposition of law that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post conviction sentencing and a case is made out for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to the condition that the petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer within a period of 15 days from today and shall join the investigation. He shall also join investigation as and when required subsequently. In the event of his arrest, the Investigating/Arresting Officer shall release the petitioner on interim bail on furnishing personal/surety bonds to his/her satisfaction. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNS. 7. It is, however, clarified that nothing stated above shall have any bearing on merits of the case. HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.24 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30797-2026 (O&M) -4- 8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. (MANISHA BATRA) 23.07.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.24 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document