CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 103 Vijay pal Singh State of Haryana Date of decision: Date of Uploading : 27.07.2026 CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 438 of the Cr. P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No. offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 308(2) of the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 District State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Haryana. 2. namely Ashok Station Sadar, Mahendergarh. It also employed in the Home Guard Department, used to demand bribe of -18935-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Vijay pal Singh V/s State of Haryana Date of decision: 27.07.2026 Date of Uploading : 27.07.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate and Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Advocate for the complainant. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 438 of the Cr. P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.02 dated 14.01.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 308(2) of the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’), at Police Station ACB Gurugr District State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Haryana. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the complainant, namely Ashok had stated that he is posted as a Home Guard at Police Station Sadar, Mahendergarh. It has been also employed in the Home Guard Department, used to demand bribe of 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18935-2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate and Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Advocate for the complainant. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 438 of the Cr. P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the 02 dated 14.01.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 308(2) of the Bharatiya (for short ‘BNS’), at Police Station ACB Gurugram, District State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Haryana. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the complainant, stated that he is posted as a Home Guard at Police has been alleged that one Rakesh, who is also employed in the Home Guard Department, used to demand bribe of Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 438 of the Cr. P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the 02 dated 14.01.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of Bharatiya am, The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the complainant, stated that he is posted as a Home Guard at Police ne Rakesh, who is also employed in the Home Guard Department, used to demand bribe of AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.27 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- ₹6,000/- assigning postings and in case of non would be removed from amount was Rakesh. The complainant requested Rakesh to reduce the demanded amount; however, Rakesh informed him that the being further handed over to Vijaypal ( District Officer at the Head Office, Chandigarh. home guard, arrangement amount of alleged that in December 2025, Satish had already received bribe from the complainant. called the complainant to a hotel situated on Ateli Road and demanded a sum of ₹2,000/ conversation regarding the said demand and s complaint which resulted in the registration of the 3. perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further iterated that question as there is complainant personally, receiving any amount from him or apprehended in the course of trap proceedings has been attributed to petitioner. -18935-2026 from each Home Guard employee on a quarterly basis for assigning postings and in case of non-payment, the concerned employee would be removed from the duty. It has been amount was collected by Satish, also a Home Guard employee, on behalf of Rakesh. The complainant requested Rakesh to reduce the demanded amount; however, Rakesh informed him that the g further handed over to Vijaypal (petitioner herein District Officer at the Head Office, Chandigarh. home guard, contacted the complainant to transfer arrangements for Rakesh, pursuant to whic amount of ₹1,000/- through the PhonePe appl alleged that in December 2025, Satish had already received bribe from the complainant. Furthermore, d the complainant to a hotel situated on Ateli Road and demanded a 2,000/- allegedly due towards him. The complainant recorded the conversation regarding the said demand and s complaint which resulted in the registration of the Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR question as there is no allegation of demanding any bribe, meeting complainant personally, receiving any amount from him or apprehended in the course of trap proceedings has been attributed to petitioner. It has been further contended 2 from each Home Guard employee on a quarterly basis for payment, the concerned employee has been further alleged that the said collected by Satish, also a Home Guard employee, on behalf of Rakesh. The complainant requested Rakesh to reduce the demanded amount; however, Rakesh informed him that the demanded money was petitioner herein), who is posted as District Officer at the Head Office, Chandigarh. On 29.11.2025, Satish contacted the complainant to transfer the money for making for Rakesh, pursuant to which, the complainant transferred an through the PhonePe application. It has been further alleged that in December 2025, Satish had already received ₹4,000/- Furthermore, on 10.01.2025, Rakesh and Satish d the complainant to a hotel situated on Ateli Road and demanded a him. The complainant recorded the conversation regarding the said demand and subsequently filed the complaint which resulted in the registration of the FIR in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR no allegation of demanding any bribe, meeting complainant personally, receiving any amount from him or bei apprehended in the course of trap proceedings has been attributed to the It has been further contended that the petitioner has not been from each Home Guard employee on a quarterly basis for payment, the concerned employee further alleged that the said collected by Satish, also a Home Guard employee, on behalf of Rakesh. The complainant requested Rakesh to reduce the demanded money was ), who is posted as n 29.11.2025, Satish, money for making the complainant transferred an further as on 10.01.2025, Rakesh and Satish d the complainant to a hotel situated on Ateli Road and demanded a him. The complainant recorded the ubsequently filed the Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in the ing the that the petitioner has not been AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.27 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- named in the FIR disclosure statement even the said disclosure statem any independent incriminating material. Learned counsel has that the co Kumar, have been accorded the concession of regular bail, vide order 19.03.2026 and 02.04.2026, respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul. Learned counsel has submitted that there is nothing on record to show complicity of the petitioner with the offence in question. It has been further argu order dated 06.08.2025 (Annexure P assignment/ posting of Home Guards in districts, preparation or issuance of duty lists of Home Guards, continuance of duty without break, or recruitment in the Home Guard Department was entrusted to the petitioner. It has been contended that the work relating to duty assignment/online roster of Home Guard volunteers stood allotted to seat E to Rakesh Kumar Sharma and not contended that even the essential ingredients to invoke Sections 7 and 13(1)(B) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and Section 308(2) of the BNS, 2023, are missing 3.1. 30.04.2026 and 15.07.2026 investigation and 3.2. from the petitioner. Learned counsel has -18935-2026 named in the FIR and he has been implicated disclosure statement(s) of the co-accused. even the said disclosure statement(s) of the co any independent incriminating material. Learned counsel has co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Rakesh Kumar and Satish Kumar, have been accorded the concession of regular bail, vide order 19.03.2026 and 02.04.2026, respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul. Learned counsel has submitted that there is nothing on record to show complicity of the petitioner with the offence in question. It has been further argued that as per official work distribution order dated 06.08.2025 (Annexure P-8), no duty whatsoever pertaining to assignment/ posting of Home Guards in districts, preparation or issuance of duty lists of Home Guards, continuance of duty without break, or ecruitment in the Home Guard Department was entrusted to the petitioner. It has been contended that the work relating to duty assignment/online roster of Home Guard volunteers stood allotted to seat E to Rakesh Kumar Sharma and not to the present petitioner. It has been contended that even the essential ingredients to invoke Sections 7 and 13(1)(B) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and Section 308(2) of the BNS, 2023, are missing Learned counsel has further contended 30.04.2026 and 15.07.2026 respectively the petitioner has investigation and has fully cooperated therein. Learned counsel has asserted that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further 3 has been implicated solely on the basis of accused. It has been further contended that of the co-accused are not supported by any independent incriminating material. Learned counsel has emphasized accused of the petitioner, namely, Rakesh Kumar and Satish Kumar, have been accorded the concession of regular bail, vide orders dated 19.03.2026 and 02.04.2026, respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul. Learned counsel has submitted that there is nothing on record to show complicity of the petitioner with the offence in ed that as per official work distribution 8), no duty whatsoever pertaining to assignment/ posting of Home Guards in districts, preparation or issuance of duty lists of Home Guards, continuance of duty without break, or ecruitment in the Home Guard Department was entrusted to the petitioner. It has been contended that the work relating to duty assignment/online roster of Home Guard volunteers stood allotted to seat E-VIII, which was assigned to the present petitioner. It has been contended that even the essential ingredients to invoke Sections 7 and 13(1)(B) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and Section 308(2) of the BNS, 2023, are missing in the present case. further contended that vide orders dated the petitioner has already joined fully cooperated therein. Learned counsel has asserted that nothing is to be recovered further urged that the petitioner is a on the basis of It has been further contended that accused are not supported by emphasized accused of the petitioner, namely, Rakesh Kumar and Satish s dated 19.03.2026 and 02.04.2026, respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul. Learned counsel has submitted that there is nothing on record to show complicity of the petitioner with the offence in ed that as per official work distribution 8), no duty whatsoever pertaining to assignment/ posting of Home Guards in districts, preparation or issuance of duty lists of Home Guards, continuance of duty without break, or ecruitment in the Home Guard Department was entrusted to the petitioner. It has been contended that the work relating to duty assignment/online roster VIII, which was assigned to the present petitioner. It has been contended that even the essential ingredients to invoke Sections 7 and 13(1)(B) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and that vide orders dated the Learned counsel has asserted that nothing is to be recovered urged that the petitioner is a AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.27 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- man aged 54 years having deep roots in the society, and, risk. It has been further asserted th investigation as and when required, shall not tamper with evidence or influence any witness and shall abide by all the condition(s) imposed by the Court in case he is enlarged on pre submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for. 4. tandem with the reply by way of an affidavit dated 28.04.2026, which is already on record, has opposed the grant of an by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. The relevant part of the said affidavit i.e. -18935-2026 man aged 54 years having deep roots in the society, and, risk. It has been further asserted that the petitioner is willing to join the investigation as and when required, shall not tamper with evidence or influence any witness and shall abide by all the condition(s) imposed by the Court in case he is enlarged on pre-arrest bail. On the submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for. Per contra, learned State counsel, while raising submissions in tandem with the reply by way of an affidavit dated 28.04.2026, which is already on record, has opposed the grant of an by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. The relevant part of the said affidavit i.e. Paras “11. That in the present case, co money at the rate of 22,000/ posted in Mahendragarh for ensuring that their duty Mahendragarh and that they are not given a break within three months, and he forwards this money to the head office at Chandigarh to the petitioner, Vijay Pal, Commandant, Home Guards, and Sanjeev, Caretaker, from where the duty list of Home Guards is prepared in such a manner that they continue to be posted in Mahendragarh; any Home Guard who does not pay the said amount is either given a another distant district; similarly, the complainant Ashok Kumar, whose duty is also at Sadar M Rs.6,000/- for three months for continuation of duty at the same place, out of which Satish had c and handed it over to Rakesh, and the said sent by him to Sanjeev, Caretaker, while the remaining was to be taken from co-accused Satish; the recording regarding the demand of bribe by the complainant, and voice samples of obtained and sent to FSL, Madhuban, Karnal, the result of which is awaited; upon collection of evidence in the case, challan has already been presented before 11.03.2026; co-accused Rakesh Kumar has been granted bail by the Hon'ble Court at Narnaul on 19.03.2026, and co accused Satish Kumar has also been granted regular bail by the Hon'ble Court at Narnaul on 02.04.2026; the next da in the case is fixed for 05.06.2026, and the investigation of the case is continuing. 12. That the petitioner, Vijay Pal, is deeply involved in the said offence, and the co-accused used to extort money from the Home Guard employees at his behest; that custodial interrogation of the 4 man aged 54 years having deep roots in the society, and, hence, has no flight at the petitioner is willing to join the investigation as and when required, shall not tamper with evidence or influence any witness and shall abide by all the condition(s) imposed by the arrest bail. On the strength of these submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for. earned State counsel, while raising submissions in tandem with the reply by way of an affidavit dated 28.04.2026, which is already on record, has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. Paras Nos.11 & 12 reads as under: hat in the present case, co-accused Rakesh Kumar collects at the rate of 22,000/- per month from Home Guards Mahendragarh for ensuring that their duty remains in Mahendragarh and that they are not given a break within three months, and he forwards this money to the head office at petitioner, Vijay Pal, Commandant, Home Guards, and Sanjeev, Caretaker, from where the duty list of Home Guards is prepared in such a manner that they continue to be in Mahendragarh; any Home Guard who does not pay the amount is either given a break or his duty is shifted to distant district; similarly, the complainant Ashok Kumar, duty is also at Sadar Mahendragarh, had agreed to pay three months for continuation of duty at the same which Satish had collected Rs.4,000/- in December to Rakesh, and the said Rs.4,000/- was further sent by him to Sanjeev, Caretaker, while the remaining Rs.2,000/ accused Satish; the recording regarding the demand of bribe by the accused has been produced by the complainant, and voice samples of the accused have been obtained and sent to FSL, Madhuban, Karnal, the result of which is awaited; upon collection of evidence in the case, the first challan has already been presented before the Hon'ble Court on accused Rakesh Kumar has been granted regular bail by the Hon'ble Court at Narnaul on 19.03.2026, and co accused Satish Kumar has also been granted regular bail by the Hon'ble Court at Narnaul on 02.04.2026; the next date of hearing the case is fixed for 05.06.2026, and the investigation of the That the petitioner, Vijay Pal, is deeply involved in the said accused used to extort money from the Home behest; that custodial interrogation of the no flight at the petitioner is willing to join the investigation as and when required, shall not tamper with evidence or influence any witness and shall abide by all the condition(s) imposed by the these earned State counsel, while raising submissions in tandem with the reply by way of an affidavit dated 28.04.2026, which is ticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. 11 & 12 reads as under: accused Rakesh Kumar collects per month from Home Guards remains in Mahendragarh and that they are not given a break within three months, and he forwards this money to the head office at petitioner, Vijay Pal, Commandant, Home Guards, and Sanjeev, Caretaker, from where the duty list of Home Guards is prepared in such a manner that they continue to be in Mahendragarh; any Home Guard who does not pay the break or his duty is shifted to distant district; similarly, the complainant Ashok Kumar, ahendragarh, had agreed to pay three months for continuation of duty at the same in December was further 2,000/- accused Satish; the recording regarding ccused has been produced by the the accused have been obtained and sent to FSL, Madhuban, Karnal, the result of which the first Court on regular bail by the Hon'ble Court at Narnaul on 19.03.2026, and co- accused Satish Kumar has also been granted regular bail by the te of hearing the case is fixed for 05.06.2026, and the investigation of the That the petitioner, Vijay Pal, is deeply involved in the said accused used to extort money from the Home behest; that custodial interrogation of the AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.27 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 4.1. learned State counsel has contended that offence, there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioner may from the process of justice and/or tamper with the prosecution witnesses/ evidence, that pursuant to the or has joined the purpose of effective and fair investigation, ascertaining complete conspiracy, identifying other persons involved, recover incriminating evidence and to unearth the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the petition in hand. 4.2. opposed the grant of petition allegations against the petitioner. It has been contended that specific allegations that the demand/collect money from the Home Guards posted in Mahendergarh and forward it to the petitioner. the concession of anticipatory bail, there is abscond from the process of justice as also interfere with the prosecution witnesses/ evidence. On the st petition in hand is 5. gone through the available record of the case. -18935-2026 petitioner, Vijay Pal, is racket.” Raising submissions in tandem with the aforesaid reply, learned State counsel has contended that , there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioner may from the process of justice and/or tamper with the prosecution witnesses/ evidence, in case he is enlarged on bail. Learned State counsel has iterated that pursuant to the orders dated 30.04.2026 & 15.07.2026, the petitioner has joined the investigation but his custodial interrogation is imperative for the purpose of effective and fair investigation, ascertaining complete conspiracy, identifying other persons involved, recover incriminating evidence and to unearth the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the petition in Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of petition in hand by arguing that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. It has been contended that specific allegations that the co-accused of the petitioner used to demand/collect money from the Home Guards posted in Mahendergarh and it to the petitioner. Furthermore, concession of anticipatory bail, there is abscond from the process of justice as also interfere with the prosecution witnesses/ evidence. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition in hand is prayed for. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case. 5 required so as to unearth the entire Raising submissions in tandem with the aforesaid reply, learned State counsel has contended that given the seriousness of the , there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioner may abscond from the process of justice and/or tamper with the prosecution witnesses/ he is enlarged on bail. Learned State counsel has iterated ders dated 30.04.2026 & 15.07.2026, the petitioner investigation but his custodial interrogation is imperative for the purpose of effective and fair investigation, ascertaining complete conspiracy, identifying other persons involved, recovering further incriminating evidence and to unearth the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the petition in for the complainant has vehemently in hand by arguing that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. It has been contended that there are accused of the petitioner used to demand/collect money from the Home Guards posted in Mahendergarh and Furthermore, , in case, the petitioner is granted concession of anticipatory bail, there is every likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice as also interfere with the prosecution rength of these submissions, dismissal of the I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case. as to unearth the entire Raising submissions in tandem with the aforesaid reply, given the seriousness of the abscond from the process of justice and/or tamper with the prosecution witnesses/ he is enlarged on bail. Learned State counsel has iterated ders dated 30.04.2026 & 15.07.2026, the petitioner investigation but his custodial interrogation is imperative for the purpose of effective and fair investigation, ascertaining complete ing further incriminating evidence and to unearth the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the petition in for the complainant has vehemently in hand by arguing that there are serious there are accused of the petitioner used to demand/collect money from the Home Guards posted in Mahendergarh and , in case, the petitioner is granted likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice as also interfere with the prosecution rength of these submissions, dismissal of the I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.27 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Punjab, 2025 INSC 320, -18935-2026 It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Devinder Kumar Bansal vs. The State of Punjab, 2025 INSC 320, relevant whereof reads as under: “21. The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence like corruption are required to be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous. So far as the case at hand is concerned, it cannot be said that any exceptional circumstances have been made out by the petitioner accused for grant of anticipatory bail and there is no frivolity in the prosecution. 22. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a pronouncement in Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy reported in (2013) 7 Scale 15, wherein this Court expressed thus: “28. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind th the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.” 23. The presumption of innoc consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused’s liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice. 24. If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free society, then the courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty. Where overwhelming considerations in the nature aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a different thing to say that once the investigation is over and charge may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant indulging in corruption. 25. Avarice is a common frailty of mankind and Robert Walpole's famous pronouncement that all men have their price, notwithstanding the unsavoury cynicism that it suggests, is not very far from truth. As far back as more than two centuries ago, it was Burke who cautioned: “Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot last long”. In more recent years, Romain Rolland lamented that France without indignation. Corruption has, in it, very dangerous potentialities. Corruption, a word of wide connotation has, in respect of almost all the 6 It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Devinder Kumar Bansal vs. The State of relevant whereof reads as under: The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence like corruption are required to be satisfied. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous. So far as the case at erned, it cannot be said that any exceptional circumstances have been made out by the petitioner accused for grant of anticipatory bail and there is no frivolity in the prosecution. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a pronouncement in Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy reported in (2013) , wherein this Court expressed thus: “28. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is ce the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused’s liberty can, sometimes, defeat the If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free rts should not hesitate in denying such liberty. Where overwhelming considerations in the nature aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a different thing to say that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, the court may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant - accused of Avarice is a common frailty of mankind and Robert Walpole's famous pronouncement that all men have their price, notwithstanding the nsavoury cynicism that it suggests, is not very far from truth. As far back as more than two centuries ago, it was Burke who cautioned: “Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot last long”. In more recent years, Romain Rolland lamented that France fell because there was corruption without indignation. Corruption has, in it, very dangerous potentialities. Corruption, a word of wide connotation has, in respect of almost all the It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Devinder Kumar Bansal vs. The State of The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence tory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous. So far as the case at erned, it cannot be said that any exceptional circumstances have been made out by the petitioner accused for grant of anticipatory In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a pronouncement in Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy reported in (2013) “28. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and at for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is ce the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused’s liberty can, sometimes, defeat the If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free rts should not hesitate in denying such liberty. Where overwhelming considerations in the nature aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a different thing to eet is filed, the court accused of Avarice is a common frailty of mankind and Robert Walpole's famous pronouncement that all men have their price, notwithstanding the nsavoury cynicism that it suggests, is not very far from truth. As far back as more than two centuries ago, it was Burke who cautioned: “Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot last long”. In more recent years, fell because there was corruption without indignation. Corruption has, in it, very dangerous potentialities. Corruption, a word of wide connotation has, in respect of almost all the AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.27 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 7. indubitably, the prosecution, the petitioner, while serving as Comman main beneficiary of a was allegedly collected from continue their duties at Mahendragarh without interruption. that the co forwarded the same to the petitioner through another accused, who was posted as caretaker at the Head Office, Chandigarh. It is further the case of the pro that those Home Guards who refused to pay the demanded amount were either given a break in service or transferred to distant districts. petitioner does not advance the case of the petitioner. the concession of regular bail whereas the petitioner seeks the concession of anticipatory bail which stands petitioner is distinct an instance the illegal collection of money was being made and controlling the posting and continuation of duties of Home Guard personnel. The stand of the investigating agency befor interrogation of the petitioner is required to trace the flow of the alleged bribe -18935-2026 spheres of our day to day life, all the world over, the limited meaning of allowing decisions and actions to be influenced not by the rights or wrongs of a case but by the prospects of monetary gains or other selfish considerations. 26. If even a fraction of what was the vox pupuli about the magnitude of corruption to be true, then it would not be far removed from the truth, that it is the rampant corruption indulged in with impunity by highly placed persons that has led to economic unrest in this country. If one is asked to name one sole factor that effectively arrested the p society to prosperity, undeniably it is corruption. If the society in a developing country faces a menace greater than even the one from the hired assassins to its law and order, then that is from the corrupt elements at the higher echelons of the Government and of the political parties. As per the material collected during the course of investigation, indubitably, the allegations against the petitioner are prosecution, the petitioner, while serving as Comman main beneficiary of a well organised system through which illegal gratification was allegedly collected from the Home Guard personnel for allowing them to continue their duties at Mahendragarh without interruption. co-accused of the petitioner collected money from the Home Guard forwarded the same to the petitioner through another accused, who was posted as aretaker at the Head Office, Chandigarh. It is further the case of the pro that those Home Guards who refused to pay the demanded amount were either given a break in service or transferred to distant districts. petitioner that the co-accused have been granted advance the case of the petitioner. the concession of regular bail whereas the petitioner seeks the concession of anticipatory bail which stands at a different footing. petitioner is distinct and more serious as he is alleged to be the person at whose instance the illegal collection of money was being made and controlling the posting and continuation of duties of Home Guard personnel. The stand of the investigating agency before this Court is that the interrogation of the petitioner is required to trace the flow of the alleged bribe 7 spheres of our day to day life, all the world over, the limited meaning of allowing decisions and actions to be influenced not by the rights or case but by the prospects of monetary gains or other selfish If even a fraction of what was the vox pupuli about the magnitude , then it would not be far removed from the truth, that it is the rampant corruption indulged in with impunity by highly placed persons that has led to economic unrest in this country. If one is asked to name one sole factor that effectively arrested the progress of our society to prosperity, undeniably it is corruption. If the society in a developing country faces a menace greater than even the one from the hired assassins to its law and order, then that is from the corrupt elements of the Government and of the political parties.” As per the material collected during the course of investigation, allegations against the petitioner are grave in nature. As per the prosecution, the petitioner, while serving as Commandant, Home Guards, was the organised system through which illegal gratification Home Guard personnel for allowing them to continue their duties at Mahendragarh without interruption. The allegations are collected money from the Home Guard(s) and forwarded the same to the petitioner through another accused, who was posted as aretaker at the Head Office, Chandigarh. It is further the case of the prosecution that those Home Guards who refused to pay the demanded amount were either given a break in service or transferred to distant districts. The plea raised by the accused have been granted the concession of regular bail advance the case of the petitioner. The co-accused have been granted the concession of regular bail whereas the petitioner seeks the concession of a different footing. The role attributed to the d more serious as he is alleged to be the person at whose instance the illegal collection of money was being made and the petitioner was controlling the posting and continuation of duties of Home Guard personnel. The e this Court is that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to trace the flow of the alleged bribe spheres of our day to day life, all the world over, the limited meaning of allowing decisions and actions to be influenced not by the rights or case but by the prospects of monetary gains or other selfish If even a fraction of what was the vox pupuli about the magnitude , then it would not be far removed from the truth, that it is the rampant corruption indulged in with impunity by highly placed persons that has led to economic unrest in this country. If one is rogress of our society to prosperity, undeniably it is corruption. If the society in a developing country faces a menace greater than even the one from the hired assassins to its law and order, then that is from the corrupt elements As per the material collected during the course of investigation, nature. As per the dant, Home Guards, was the organised system through which illegal gratification Home Guard personnel for allowing them to The allegations are and forwarded the same to the petitioner through another accused, who was posted as secution that those Home Guards who refused to pay the demanded amount were either plea raised by the regular bail accused have been granted the concession of regular bail whereas the petitioner seeks the concession of The role attributed to the d more serious as he is alleged to be the person at whose was controlling the posting and continuation of duties of Home Guard personnel. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to trace the flow of the alleged bribe AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.27 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- money, to confront him with the oral, documentary and scientific evidence collected during involving illegal collection of money from Home Guard personnel. The investigation appears to be at a crucial stage, particularly when the forensic report regarding the voice samples is still awaited. 8. interim bail on 30.04.2026 and the petitioner is stated to have joined the investigation but this fact, by itself, is not sufficient to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner by confirming the order dated 30.04.23026 sin the FIR are grave and serious in nature. Even, if it is said that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner still this, by itself, in favour of the petitioner. A profitable r judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C.K. and another, 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977 relevant whereof reads as under: -18935-2026 money, to confront him with the oral, documentary and scientific evidence collected during the course of investigation and to unearth the involving illegal collection of money from Home Guard personnel. The investigation appears to be at a crucial stage, particularly when the forensic report regarding the voice samples is still awaited. Indubitably, the petitioner was earli interim bail on 30.04.2026 and the petitioner is stated to have joined the investigation but this fact, by itself, is not sufficient to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner by confirming the order dated 30.04.23026 sin the FIR are grave and serious in nature. Even, if it is said that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner still this, by itself, in favour of the petitioner. A profitable reference in this regard can be made to judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C.K. and another, 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977 relevant whereof reads as under: “12. In a case containing such serio ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction in granting protection against arrest, as the Investigating Officer deserves freehand to take the investigation to its logical conclusion. It goes without saying that appearance before the Investigating Officer who, has been prevented from subjecting Respondent No.1 to custodial interrogation, can hardly be fruitful to find out the prima facie substance in the allegations, which are of extreme serious in nature. xxx xxx 16. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no cas made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted an first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along 8 money, to confront him with the oral, documentary and scientific evidence investigation and to unearth the entire racket involving illegal collection of money from Home Guard personnel. The investigation appears to be at a crucial stage, particularly when the forensic report Indubitably, the petitioner was earlier afforded the concession of ad interim bail on 30.04.2026 and the petitioner is stated to have joined the investigation but this fact, by itself, is not sufficient to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner by confirming the order dated 30.04.23026 since the allegations in the FIR are grave and serious in nature. Even, if it is said that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner still this, by itself, does not vest any indefeasible right eference in this regard can be made to judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C.K. and another, 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977 In a case containing such serious allegations, the High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction in granting protection against arrest, as the Investigating Officer deserves freehand to take the investigation to its logical conclusion. It goes without saying that fore the Investigating Officer who, has been prevented from subjecting Respondent No.1 to custodial interrogation, can hardly be fruitful to find out the prima facie substance in the allegations, which are of extreme serious in nature. xxx xxx 16. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an ion seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along money, to confront him with the oral, documentary and scientific evidence entire racket involving illegal collection of money from Home Guard personnel. The investigation appears to be at a crucial stage, particularly when the forensic report er afforded the concession of ad- interim bail on 30.04.2026 and the petitioner is stated to have joined the investigation but this fact, by itself, is not sufficient to grant anticipatory bail to ce the allegations in the FIR are grave and serious in nature. Even, if it is said that no recovery is to be vest any indefeasible right eference in this regard can be made to a Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C.K. and another, 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977, us allegations, the High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction in granting protection against arrest, as the Investigating Officer deserves freehand to take the investigation to its logical conclusion. It goes without saying that fore the Investigating Officer who, has been prevented from subjecting Respondent No.1 to custodial interrogation, can hardly be fruitful to find out the prima facie substance in the allegations, which 16. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a e for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an ion seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.27 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 9. the case diary to show that on 16.05.2026, the prosecution statements of 04 persons more namely Bhuvan Chand, Ashok, Jitender Kumar and Pawan, under Section 183 of BNS, 202 This Court has perused the said statements with the assistance of the learned State counsel, which Furthermore, n which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question nascent stage. of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the for fair and free investigation, as also the deeper and wider impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie come on record and the preliminary investigation, appears to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. (Cri) 1039] -18935-2026 with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.” During the course of hearing, learned State counsel has referred to the case diary to show that on 16.05.2026, the prosecution statements of 04 persons more namely Bhuvan Chand, Ashok, Jitender Kumar and Pawan, under Section 183 of BNS, 202 This Court has perused the said statements with the assistance of the learned State counsel, which point out towards specific allegations against the petitioner. Furthermore, no cause nay plausible cause has been which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the in question. Moreover, the investigation is underway and the same is at nascent stage. It is befitting to mention here that while considering of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the for fair and free investigation, as also the deeper and wider impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. come on record and the preliminary investigation, appears to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a well-ensconced with a favourable order under 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 9 the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground uring the course of hearing, learned State counsel has referred to the case diary to show that on 16.05.2026, the prosecution got recorded statements of 04 persons more namely Bhuvan Chand, Ashok, Jitender Kumar and Pawan, under Section 183 of BNS, 2026 (erstwhile Section 164 Cr.P.C.). This Court has perused the said statements with the assistance of the learned State out towards specific allegations against the petitioner. plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the . Moreover, the investigation is underway and the same is at It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation, as also the deeper and wider impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and the preliminary investigation, appears to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC , the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) 6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is oriented than questioning a suspect who is 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 been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground uring the course of hearing, learned State counsel has referred to got recorded the statements of 04 persons more namely Bhuvan Chand, Ashok, Jitender Kumar 6 (erstwhile Section 164 Cr.P.C.). This Court has perused the said statements with the assistance of the learned State out towards specific allegations against the petitioner. shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the . Moreover, the investigation is underway and the same is at a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the need for fair and free investigation, as also the deeper and wider impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that The material which has come on record and the preliminary investigation, appears to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC 6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is suspect who is 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 been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre- AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.27 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 10. specific role assigned, the stage of investigation as also the necessity of custodial interrogation for that the petitioner do factual milieu 11. (i) (ii) (iii) July 27, 202 Ajay -18935-2026 arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a me 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 conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders. Considering the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the specific role assigned, the stage of investigation as also the necessity of custodial interrogation for the verification of facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the milieu of the case in hand. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: The instant petition is devoid of merits and is Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. (iii) Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 10 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 degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court 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 nature and seriousness of the allegations, the specific role assigned, the stage of investigation as also the necessity of custodial verification of facts, this Court is of the considered opinion es not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: The instant petition is devoid of merits and is, hereby, dismissed. reinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation re 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 presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring Considering the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the specific role assigned, the stage of investigation as also the necessity of custodial verification of facts, this Court is of the considered opinion es not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the dismissed. reinabove shall be deemed to be an expression AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.27 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document