CRM-M-41033 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (106) DALJIT SINGH STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: Present: ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) 1. anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 80 dated 13.06.2026, registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 109(1), 118(1), 3(5) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula, Haryana 2. petitioner was not named in the FIR, which was initially lodged against unknown person. petitioner's name did not figure in their first in the subsequent disclosure statement, the petitioner came to be nominated. It is further submitted that petitioner was not found present at the alleged spot of occurrence and no alleged injury has been attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that, at best, the allegation -1- 41033-2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DALJIT SINGH Versus STATE OF HARYANA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN **** Mr. Subhash Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Swati Batra, Sr. DAG, Haryana Assisted by SI Ravi Kumar. **** ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed seeking the anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 80 dated 13.06.2026, registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 109(1), 118(1), 3(5) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula, Haryana. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, which was initially lodged against unknown person. Subsequently, when the petitioner's name did not figure in their first in the subsequent disclosure statement, the petitioner came to be nominated. It is further submitted that petitioner was not found present at the alleged spot of occurrence and no alleged injury has been attributed to the Learned counsel further submits that, at best, the allegation IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-41033-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 27.07.2026 ……Petitioner ……Respondent ALOK JAIN Mr. Subhash Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Swati Batra, Sr. DAG, Haryana The present petition has been filed seeking the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 80 dated 13.06.2026, registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 109(1), 118(1), 3(5) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Sector Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, which was initially lodged against Subsequently, when the co-accused were arrested, the petitioner's name did not figure in their first disclosure statement. However, in the subsequent disclosure statement, the petitioner came to be nominated. It is further submitted that petitioner was not found present at the alleged spot of occurrence and no alleged injury has been attributed to the Learned counsel further submits that, at best, the allegation 27.07.2026 ……Petitioner ……Respondent concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 80 dated 13.06.2026, registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 109(1), 118(1), 3(5) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Sector Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, which was initially lodged against arrested, the disclosure statement. However, in the subsequent disclosure statement, the petitioner came to be nominated. It is further submitted that petitioner was not found present at the alleged spot of occurrence and no alleged injury has been attributed to the Learned counsel further submits that, at best, the allegation MANJU 2026.07.29 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41033 against the petitioner is that he had assisted the main accused in the commission of the crime. to be effected from the petitioner. It i is a social worker and is the Halqa Incharge of the ruling party. Owing to the nature of his work, he necessarily comes into contact with members of the general public, but the same cannot be construed as his being a conspirator in the commission of the alleged offence. It is also submitted that the FIR was lodged on 13.06.2026, whereas the allegations against the petitioner pertain to the period subsequent thereto. 3. who is present in Court, has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that other co arrested. She further submits that the offence was committed in a well planned manner, wherein were armed with weapons. various routes depicts that petitioner was travelling in the vehicle and was leading the co the crime. 4. the petitioner was not present at the alleged spot of crime, the prosecution is relying upon CCTV footage demonstrating the petitioner is sitting in alleged Scorpi occurrence, no Scorpio car was found. -2- 41033-2026 (O&M) against the petitioner is that he had assisted the main accused in the commission of the crime. Learned counsel to be effected from the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a social worker and is the Halqa Incharge of the ruling party. Owing to the nature of his work, he necessarily comes into contact with members of the general public, but the same cannot be construed as his being a conspirator in the commission of the alleged offence. It is also submitted that the FIR was lodged on 13.06.2026, whereas the allegations against the petitioner pertain to the period subsequent thereto. Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by S who is present in Court, has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that other co arrested. She further submits that the offence was committed in a well planned manner, wherein a fake number plate was used and the accused were armed with weapons. It is submitted that the various routes depicts that petitioner was travelling in the vehicle and was leading the co-accused. It clearly establishes complicity of the p At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner clarifies that the petitioner was not present at the alleged spot of crime, the prosecution is relying upon CCTV footage demonstrating the petitioner is sitting in alleged Scorpio Car, however, only one XUV car was found at place of occurrence, no Scorpio car was found. against the petitioner is that he had assisted the main accused in the counsel emphasized that no recovery is s further submitted that the petitioner is a social worker and is the Halqa Incharge of the ruling party. Owing to the nature of his work, he necessarily comes into contact with members of the general public, but the same cannot be construed as his being a conspirator in the commission of the alleged offence. It is also submitted that the FIR was lodged on 13.06.2026, whereas the allegations against the petitioner pertain to the period subsequent thereto. , learned State counsel, assisted by SI Ravi Kumar, who is present in Court, has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that other co-accused are yet to be arrested. She further submits that the offence was committed in a well- a fake number plate was used and the accused It is submitted that the CCTV footage of various routes depicts that petitioner was travelling in the vehicle and was accused. It clearly establishes complicity of the petitioner in At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner clarifies that the petitioner was not present at the alleged spot of crime, the prosecution is relying upon CCTV footage demonstrating the petitioner is sitting in o Car, however, only one XUV car was found at place of against the petitioner is that he had assisted the main accused in the that no recovery is s further submitted that the petitioner is a social worker and is the Halqa Incharge of the ruling party. Owing to the nature of his work, he necessarily comes into contact with members of the general public, but the same cannot be construed as his being a conspirator in the commission of the alleged offence. It is also submitted that the FIR was lodged on 13.06.2026, whereas the allegations against the I Ravi Kumar, who is present in Court, has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory accused are yet to be - a fake number plate was used and the accused CCTV footage of various routes depicts that petitioner was travelling in the vehicle and was in At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner clarifies that the petitioner was not present at the alleged spot of crime, the prosecution is relying upon CCTV footage demonstrating the petitioner is sitting in o Car, however, only one XUV car was found at place of MANJU 2026.07.29 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41033 5. of the co- investigation, reveal that one of house of the petitioner as the place where the conspiracy to commit the offence was hatched. It is further submitted that the petitioner was, in fact, the mastermind behind the planning of the entire crime. His custodial interrogation is ne used in the offence, and the vehicle used in the commission of the crime is also yet to be recovered. Apart from the disclosure statements, there is prima facie thereby making his custodial interrogation essential. It is also submitted that two other unidentified persons were travelling with the petitioner in his car, and the said car was ascertained at whose behest the petitioner acted in the commission of the offence, for which his custodial interrogation is indispensable. 6. 7. specifically made out a case that, apart from the disclosure statements, there is prima facie commission of the offence and that his custodial interrogation is necessary for effective investigation, inc of the remaining accused and ascertaining the source of the weapon, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of the concession of anticipatory bail. -3- 41033-2026 (O&M) Learned State counsel further submits that the CDR locations -accused, coupled with their statements recorded during investigation, reveal that one of the co-accused house of the petitioner as the place where the conspiracy to commit the offence was hatched. It is further submitted that the petitioner was, in fact, the mastermind behind the planning of the entire crime. His custodial interrogation is necessary to ascertain the source of the weapon allegedly used in the offence, and the vehicle used in the commission of the crime is also yet to be recovered. Apart from the disclosure statements, there is cogent material connecting the petition thereby making his custodial interrogation essential. It is also submitted that two other unidentified persons were travelling with the petitioner in his car, and the said car was leading the vehicle of the ascertained at whose behest the petitioner acted in the commission of the offence, for which his custodial interrogation is indispensable. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Considering the fact that the investigating agency has ecifically made out a case that, apart from the disclosure statements, there prima facie independent material connecting the petitioner with the commission of the offence and that his custodial interrogation is necessary for effective investigation, including recovery of the vehicle, identification of the remaining accused and ascertaining the source of the weapon, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of the concession of anticipatory bail. Moreover, the settled principle of law Learned State counsel further submits that the CDR locations accused, coupled with their statements recorded during accused when arrested identified the house of the petitioner as the place where the conspiracy to commit the offence was hatched. It is further submitted that the petitioner was, in fact, the mastermind behind the planning of the entire crime. His custodial cessary to ascertain the source of the weapon allegedly used in the offence, and the vehicle used in the commission of the crime is also yet to be recovered. Apart from the disclosure statements, there is cogent material connecting the petitioner with the co-accused, thereby making his custodial interrogation essential. It is also submitted that two other unidentified persons were travelling with the petitioner in his car, leading the vehicle of the co-accused. It is yet to be ascertained at whose behest the petitioner acted in the commission of the offence, for which his custodial interrogation is indispensable. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Considering the fact that the investigating agency has ecifically made out a case that, apart from the disclosure statements, there independent material connecting the petitioner with the commission of the offence and that his custodial interrogation is necessary luding recovery of the vehicle, identification of the remaining accused and ascertaining the source of the weapon, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of the concession of the settled principle of law has been laid down Learned State counsel further submits that the CDR locations accused, coupled with their statements recorded during identified the house of the petitioner as the place where the conspiracy to commit the offence was hatched. It is further submitted that the petitioner was, in fact, the mastermind behind the planning of the entire crime. His custodial cessary to ascertain the source of the weapon allegedly used in the offence, and the vehicle used in the commission of the crime is also yet to be recovered. Apart from the disclosure statements, there is accused, thereby making his custodial interrogation essential. It is also submitted that two other unidentified persons were travelling with the petitioner in his car, be ascertained at whose behest the petitioner acted in the commission of the Considering the fact that the investigating agency has ecifically made out a case that, apart from the disclosure statements, there independent material connecting the petitioner with the commission of the offence and that his custodial interrogation is necessary luding recovery of the vehicle, identification of the remaining accused and ascertaining the source of the weapon, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of the concession of n laid down MANJU 2026.07.29 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41033 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Sharma,(1997) 7SCC 187 8. of law, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is of paramount importance, to its logical end. -4- 41033-2026 (O&M) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Sharma,(1997) 7SCC 187, the relevant extract is reproduced as under: “We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation orientated than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would 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 condit reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring would not conduct themselves as offenders. In light of the facts, circumstances the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is of paramount , at this stage, to ensure that the investigation in this case comes to its logical end. by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of CBI vs. Anil , the relevant extract is reproduced as under: We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation ntated than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also erials 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 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 would not conduct themselves as offenders. In light of the facts, circumstances and settled principle the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is of paramount at this stage, to ensure that the investigation in this case comes CBI vs. Anil We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation ntated than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also erials which would have been concealed. Success in elude if the suspected person - arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. ion would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced 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 would not conduct and settled principle the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is of paramount at this stage, to ensure that the investigation in this case comes MANJU 2026.07.29 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41033 9. grant the extra ordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, hence, the same is dismissed. 10. July 27, 2026 manju Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: -5- 41033-2026 (O&M) Accordingly, this Court does not find any reasonable ground grant the extra ordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, hence, the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. July 27, 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No Accordingly, this Court does not find any reasonable ground to grant the extra ordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (ALOK JAIN) JUDGE to grant the extra ordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, MANJU 2026.07.29 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document