CRM-M-27181-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 104 CRM-M-27181-2026 Decided on: 28.07.2026 Imran Khan ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Arjun Dhingra, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Malvika Singh, DAG, Haryana. **** SANJAY VASHISTH , J.(Oral) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 123 dated 22.04.2026, under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 3(5) of BNS (erstwhile Sections 420, 406, 34 IPC), registered at Police Station Sadar Nuh, Mewat. 2. Today, learned State counsel relies upon paragraph No. 9 of the status report dated 21.07.2026 to substantiate the argument that petitioner-Imran Khan, co-accused Niyaz, and complainant-Iqbal were in regular contact with each other and were also found present at the same locations on various occasions. The relevant portion thereof reads as under: “ 9. That now the investigation is being conducted by the deponent. The call Details Record and ID CAF of mobile No.9813613360 of the complainant Iqbal, mobile No.9813462088 of the petitioner Imran and mobile No.9813165243 of accused Niyaj Mohd and the location details of the said mobile numbers were obtained. From the perusal of call details and location details, the following details came forth:- RASHMI 2026.07.29 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-27181-2026 2 i. The complainant lqbal had conversed from his mobile no.9813613360 with the petitioner Imran on his mobile no. 9813462088 on 20.08.2025 at 16:41:28. They had also regularly conversed with each other from 21.08.2025 to 15.10.2025. ii. The accused Niyaj Mohd. had conversed from his mobile no.9813165243 with the complainant lqbal on his mobile no. 9813613360 on 01.07.2025 at 11:17:58. They had also regularly conversed with each other from 01.07.2025 to 31.10.2025. iii. The accused Niyaj Mohd. had conversed from his mobile no.9813165243 with the petitioner Imran on his mobile no.9813462088 on 12.06.2025 at 13:24:55 (duration 60 seconds)They had also conversed with each other once on 29.04.2025, five times in May 2025, ten times in July 2025, twice in August 2025, thrice in December 2025. iv. The location of mobile no. 9813613360 of complainant lqbal, mobile no. 9813462088 of the petitioner Imran and mobile no. 9813165243 of accused Niyaj Mohd. on 09.06.2025 at 13:37:57 and on 26.11.2025 at 14:38"12 was found to be of Ward No. 1,Opposite State Warehouse, Tauru Road, Nuh. v. The location of mobile no. 9813462088 of the petitioner Imran and mobile no. 9813165243 of accused Niyaj Mohd. on 28.06.2025 at 10:28:46 and 10:50:54, on 22.11.2025 at 17:03:44 and on 17.12.2025 on 13:05:57 was found to be of Ward No. 8. vi. The location on 15.06.2025 at 21:19:39, on 31.10.2025 at 09:38:34 was found to be of near Jama Masjid, Jakhopur, Village Khedla. vii. The location on 15.06.2025 at 22:23:29, on 12.10.2025 at 20:25:38 was found to be of Engineering College, Palla. The location on 15.06.2025 at 23:48:32, on 23.12.2025 on 10:08:15 was found to be of Village Malab. viii. The location of the complainant lqbal and accused Niyaj Mohd. on 10.06.2025 at 13:48:55, on 23.08.2025 at 10:00:49 was found to be of Village Bainsi. ix. The location of the complainant lqbal and the petitioner Imran Khan on 13.06.2025 at 08:10:56, on 14:12:2025 on 10:20:24 was found to be of Ward No. 11, Nuh. x. The location of accused Niyaj and complainant lqbal on 01.06.2025 at 13:42:17 and 29.11.2025 at RASHMI 2026.07.29 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-27181-2026 3 12:58:32 was found to be of Jaisinghpur. xi. The location of accused Niyaj and the petitioner Imran Khan on 06.06.2025 at 7:31:36 and on 22.10.2025 at 16:52:03 was found to be of Ward No. 5, Nuh. xii. The location of the complainant lqbal and co- accused Niyaj on 10.06.2025 at 08:32:43 and on 22.09.2025 at 10:47:17 was found to be of Village Rehna.” 3. The aforesaid technical evidence, particularly the call detail records and location details, cannot be ignored at this stage. Material placed on record prima facie indicates a connection amongst the petitioner, co-accused Niyaz, and the complainant. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, this Court is not inclined to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Present petition is hereby dismissed. 4. However, it is clarified that, in case the petitioner surrenders before the concerned Court/Investigating Officer within a period of 10 days from today and moves an application for grant of regular bail, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE July 28, 2026 Rashmi Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO RASHMI 2026.07.29 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document