CRM-M/7841/2025 of MUKESH KUMAR Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS on 3 September 2026

1. Bharatiya (erstwhile following

7841-2025

N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ CHANDIGA CHANDIGA CHANDIGA CHANDIGA

Kumar

V/s Haryana and others

ecision: ecision: ecision: ecision: 03.09.2026 03.09.2026 03.09.2026 03.09.2026 Uploading : 07.09.2026 Uploading : 07.09.2026 Uploading : 07.09.2026 Uploading : 07.09.2026 : : : : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SU HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SU HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SU HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SU Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Sen Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, A Mr. Nitin Sachdeva, Advocat Mr. Shubham Goyal, Advoca Ms. Sukriti Jain, Advocate an Mr. R.S. Duggal, Advocate f Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Ha ***** T GOEL T GOEL T GOEL T GOEL, J. , J. , J. , J. The petition in hand has be a Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 e Section 482 of the Criminal g substantive prayer: “It is, therefore, most resp kindly be allowed and the FIR (Annexure P-23), lodged by An Haryana under Section 409, 418, 13(1)(c) & 13(1)(d) of Preventi ACB, Sector 47, Gurugram, Har (Annexure P-24) lodged by Ant Haryana under Section 409, 418 13(1)(c) & 7(c) of Prevention o Sector 47, Gurugram, Haryana an out of the same, being perverse, i proceedings therein amounting t interest of justice.

JAB AND HARYANA AT JAB AND HARYANA AT JAB AND HARYANA AT JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH ARH ARH ARH

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-7841

7841-2025

....Petitioner

....Respondents UMEET GOEL UMEET GOEL UMEET GOEL UMEET GOEL nior Advocate with Advocate te ate nd for the petitioner. aryana for the respondent-State. een filed under Section 528 of 3 (hereinafter referred to as BNS Procedure Code, 1973), with pectfully prayed that preset petition m IRs i.e. FIR no. 43 Dated 28.11.20 nti Corruption Burea, Gurugram (AC 420, 467, 468, 120-B of IPC, and 13( ion of Corruption Act, Police Statio aryana and FIR no.11 Dated 05.03.20 ti Corruption Bureau, Gurugram (AC 8, 420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC and 13( of Corruption Act, Police Station :AC nd all the subsequent proceedings aris illegal, mala fide and the continuation to an abuse of process of law, in

the SS) the may

CB) 3(2), on :

CB) 3(2), ACB, sing n of the MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-

7841-2025

Further for quashing/setti (Annexure P-22) whereby sanct Prevention of Corruption Act, 20 after a lapse of 3 years and that appointing authority, in the interes Further for directing the r against Sh. R.S. Verma, Sh. Shiv Quarter (now retired) and others report dated 03.10.2022 (Annexur Further for directing the regarding the role of Sh. Subhash the then Administrator, Gurugram Officer, Gurugram and other offi Pradhikaran and SVB at Gurugra in view of the facts and circumst of justice. Further for directing the r present matter conducted from a rank of ADGP outside the State agency, as various HCS/IAS/IPS i.e. Sh. Subhash Yadav, the then I Sh. R.S. Verma/respondent no. 8 then Administrator, Head Quarte Gurugramand Sh. Bharat Bhusha Gurugram/respondent no. 10 an SVB at Gurugram & Panchkula, i For staying all the procee i.e.FIR No. 43 Dated 28.11.2022 05.03.2023 (Annexure P-24), till CWP No. 29230 of 2022 filed by 17.01.2023 (Annexure P-27A) co the petitioner has only compl 15.06.2018 (Annexure P-4) forw and email dated 27.07.2018 (A

And ting aside letter/order dated 10.11.20 ction/permission under Section 17-A 019 has been granted by the Departm t too not by the competent authority est of justice. And respondent no. 1, 5 & 6 for taking act iv Pansad, the then Administrator, H officials/officers, on the basis of inqu ure P-21), in the interest of justice. And respondent no. 1 & 2 to conduct pro h Yadav, the then I.G. SVB (now retire m and Sh. Bharat Bhushan Gogia, Est ficers/officials of Haryana Shehari Vi am & Panchkula involved in the mat tances of the present case, in the inter And respondent no. 1 to get the inquiry of any senior police officer not below te of Haryana or any other independ S officers are involved in the present c I.G. SVB (now retired)/respondent no 8, Sh. Shiv Parsad/respondent no. 9, er (now retired), the then Administra an Gogia, the then Estate Officer-I & nd other officers/officials of HSVP a in the interest of justice. And edings initiated from the impugned F 2 (Annexure P-23) and FIR No. 11 Da the decision of the present petition, a y Bharat Bhushan Taneja, vide orderda oercive steps have been stayed, wher lied with the orders/directions Da warded/signed by Bharat Bhushan Tan (Annexure P-8) sent by Shiv Pras

A of ment i.e. tion Head uiry robe red), state Vikas tter, erest f the the dent case

o. 7, the ator, & II, and FIRs ated as in ated reas ated neja sad, MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-

2. thus:

(i) Officer-I, sites, i.e. Sector 23 in the ye allotments revisions concerned respective

(ii) firm(s) se then hold from the delivery o verificatio allotment

7841-2025

Administrator (Headquarter), HSV of justice. For the issuance of any oth Court may deem fit and proper in and for grant of such relief to wh in the facts and circumstances of t It is further prayed that from filing the certified/true typed same may kindly be allowed to justice.” The relevant factual backdro The petitioner, at the releva HSVP, Gurugram. The genesis SCO Nos. 8 and 30, Sector 2 3-A, Gurugram. The said proper ear 1997 and allotment letters s were subsequently cancelle and review proceedings aris d allottees were also dismissed ely. In the year 2018, application eeking restoration of the aforesa ding the charge of Estate Office higher authorities to verify th of the original allotment letters on of the official record, the pet letters issued in the year 1997

SVP from his official email, in the inter And/or ther order or direction which this Hon n the facts and circumstances of the ca hich the petitioner may be found entit the case. the petitioner may kindly be exemp d copies of Annexure P-1 to P-50 and o be placed on record, in the interest op of the lis in hand is adumbra ant time, was serving as an Est of the matter relates to three SC 23-A, Gurugram and SCO No. rties had originally been auction were issued on 18.12.1997. T ed on 10.04.1998. The appea sing therefrom preferred by in the years 1999, 2000 and 20 n(s) were moved by the concern aid SCOs. The petitioner, who w er-I, Gurugram, received directio he factual position regarding no and to take necessary action. titioner had found that the origi had remained undelivered and h

erest n'ble ase; itled pted d the st of ted tate CO 13, ned The als, the ned was ons on- On nal had MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-

been retu issued cop the same Panchkula reports in

(iii) subsequen conditiona SCO No 04.09.201 directions allotments

(iv) inquiry re findings i occurred allotments dated 10. of Corrup

(v) dated 28. FIR No.1 The prose as Estate concerned

7841-2025

urned by the postal authorities pies/provisional conditional allot subject to final approval of

a. Furthermore, the petitioner h this regard to the higher authori The aforesaid conditiona ntly cancelled/withdrawn. In r al allotment was cancelled on o.13, the petitioner withdrew

18. The petitioner had claimed s received from his superior s were never given finality by th Thereafter, Vigilance Inqui eport dated 03.10.2022, as relied in his favour wherein it has bee to the Government on accoun

s. The petitioner has also reli 11.2022 regarding approval und ption Act. Notwithstanding the aforesa 11.2022 had been registered in 1 dated 05.03.2023 had been re ecution case, in substance, is tha Officer-I, Gurugram, in conniv d private parties, proceeded to s. Pursuant thereto, the petition tment letter(s), specifically maki the Chief Administrator, HSV had also submitted the complian ities. al allotments, however, w espect of SCO Nos.8 and 30, 30.08.2018 whereas in respect w the conditional allotment that he had acted pursuant to officers and that the propos he competent authority. iry was conducted and the fi d upon by the petitioner, record en stated that no financial loss h nt of issuance of the conditio ed upon the order/communicati der Section 17-A of the Preventi aid circumstances, the FIR No respect of SCO Nos.8 and 30 a egistered in respect of SCO No. at the petitioner, while functioni vance with other officials and restore/re-allot the SCOs after

ner ing VP, nce ere the of on the sed nal ded had nal ion ion .43 and

13. ing the r a MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M- considera undue ben HSVP. T without ob played an inquiry re Bureau as 17-A of P also been 2022.

(vi) approache whereby Pursuant furnished anticipato common Supreme dismissal 16.04.202

(vii) by way o No.43 da 18.01.202

7841-2025

able lapse of time at the old ra nefit to the private parties and c The allegations further disclos btaining the requisite approval fr n active role in the re-allotment eport dated 27.12.2019 sent by s also letter dated 10.11.2022 w Prevention of Corruption Act w n challenged by the petitioner be In relation to the aforesaid ed this Court seeking the co interim protection had been thereto, the petitioner had jo the requisite affidavit regardin ory-bail petition(s) were ultimat order dated 20.03.2024.The p Court vide SLP(Crl.) No.4962- of his plea (for anticipatory bai 24, the said SLP was declined by Thereafter, the petitioner had of CRM-M-2757-2023 (Annexu ated 28.11.2022. However, the 23 with liberty to the petitioner t ates and thereby allegedly caus consequential wrongful loss to ed that the petitioner had ac from the competent authority & h of the properties in question. T Director General, State Vigilan whereby permission under Secti was granted by the Department h efore this Court vide CWP-2741 d FIRs, the petitioner had earl oncession of anticipatory bail afforded to him on 07.06.20 oined the investigation and a ng his assets. However, both tely dismissed by this Court v petitioner approached the Hon’ -4963/2024, against the above-s

il) by this Court. Vide order da y the Hon’ble Supreme Court. d also earlier approached this Co ure P-26) seeking quashing of F said petition was withdrawn to apprise the investigating agen

sed the ted had The nce ion had lier l(s)

23. also the ide ble aid ted ourt FIR on ncy MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-

of the issu at the app

to seek therefrom

3. appearing maintaina petitioner merits) by plea for Admittedl availed th prelimina himself to the plea fo earlier att

3.1. Garg Na maintaina seeking an petition s operate in different anticipato

7841-2025

ues raised therein and to take al propriate stage, in case a challan w However, by way of petition quashing of the impugned FI

m) itself. At the very outset, this Cou g for the rival parties to add ability of the petition in han r’s earlier plea(s) for Anticipato y this Court, which order has atta anticipatory bail subsequently ly, in the interregnum, the petitio he remedy of regular bail from t ary question, therefore, is whethe o the process of law, can maint for quashing of the FIR(s) in que empt(s) to secure anticipatory ba Learned counsel appearing f arwana, Senior Advocate; w ability, has submitted that the m nticipatory bail, cannot, ipso fac eeking quashing of FIR. It is co n distinct and independent field considerations. It is further ite ory bail, even on merits, does no l such points before the trial Co was presented. n in hand, the petitioner has chos IRs (as also proceedings arisi urt called upon the learned coun ress the preliminary question nd, particularly in view of ry bail having been dismissed ( ained finality upon dismissal of by the Hon’ble Supreme Cou oner has not surrendered much l the competent court. The pertin er the petitioner, without submitti tain the petition in hand espousi stion (on merits) after failing in ail. for the petitioner; led by Sh. S while addressing the issue mere dismissal of an earlier petiti cto, operates as a bar to the pres ontended that the two proceedin ds and are governed by materia erated that dismissal of prayer ot amount to an adjudication up

ourt sen ing nsel of the (on the urt. ess ent ing ing his .K. of ion ent ngs ally for pon MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-

the legalit the prosec

principle anticipato by way o action, re distinct, t dismissal

jurisdictio the jurisdi earlier or considera examinati quashing counsel h may be al

4. maintaina having ap having fa without su to circum

7841-2025

ty or sustainability of the FIR, n cution must necessarily proceed. Learned Senior counsel has of merger or estoppel whe ory bail forecloses an otherwise of a quashing petition. It is fu lief sought and jurisdiction invo the dismissal of one cannot, by of other. Lastly, the learned senior on to quash an FIR is neither a iction exercised while considerin rder(s) declining anticipatory b ation, but it ipso facto, ca ion of the FIR on the paramete of FIR. On the strength of afore-sai as canvassed that the petition in llowed to plead the case on merit In oppugnation, learned Sta ability of the petition in hand. I pproached this Court for discretio ailed therein (as also before the urrendering to the jurisdiction o mvent the consequence of s nor does it constitute a finding t

further urged that there is no le ereby an unsuccessful plea maintainable challenge to the F urther submitted that the cause oked in the two proceedings bei y necessary implication, entail r counsel has argued that substitute for, nor an extension ng a plea for anticipatory bail. T bail may be relevant for cour annot foreclose an independ ers applicable to a petition seeki id submissions, the learned sen n hand is maintainable and hence ts thereof. ate counsel has assailed the ve It is submitted that the petition onary relief of anticipatory bail a Hon’ble Supreme Court), cann f the competent court/ police, se such dismissal by invoking

hat gal for FIR of ing the the of, The rt’s dent ing nior he ery ner, and not, eek the MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-

extraordin contended relief, wh consequen discretion seek subs showing anticipato been sub submitting surrendere discretion that perm circumsta circumven for.

5. through th

6. apposite t 12541 12541 12541 12541-20

2026:PHH 2026:PHH 2026:PHH 2026:PHH

7841-2025

nary jurisdiction of this Court fo d that a plea for anticipatory ba hereas a plea for quashing of ntial relief, and having fail nary protection against arrest, th tantially greater relief of oblitera any material change in circu ory bail petition) in the factual co bmitted that the petitioner; ha g himself to the jurisdiction of t ed nor sought regular bail, i nary and equitable jurisdiction o mitting the petitioner to main ances as noticed hereinabove, w nt the earlier order(s) which he h On these grounds, dismissal I have heard learned counsel he available records of the case. Before proceedings further to refer herein to a judgment p

026 titled as Kuldeep Singh v Kuldeep Singh v Kuldeep Singh v Kuldeep Singh v HC:069608, HC:069608, HC:069608, HC:069608, the relevant whereo “Prime Issue Prime Issue Prime Issue Prime Issue or quashing of FIR(s). It is furth ail in itself is a limited and les FIR is a much wider and mo led to secure even the les e petitioner cannot be permitted ating the very prosecution, witho umstance (since dismissal of onspectus of the case at hand. It h aving deliberately refrained fro the competent court, having neith is disentitled from invoking f this Court. It is, thus, contend ntain the present petition in would amount to permitting him has already to obtain. of the petition in hand is entrea for the rival parties and have go r with the matter, it would passed by this Court in CRM CRM CRM CRM- vs. State of Punjab and others vs. State of Punjab and others vs. State of Punjab and others vs. State of Punjab and others f reads as under:

her sser ore sser d to out the has om her the ded the m to ted one be -M- s = s = s = s = MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-

7841-2025

5. The prime issue whether the petition in hand oug (as also proceedings arising theref

The seminal legal whether the petition under Sectio 482 of Cr. P.C.) ought to be en petition for anticipatory bail; th during the interregnum, and has law.

Analysis

Analysis

Analysis

Analysis

6. Undoubtedly, whil grant of Anticipatory Bail unde Section 438 Cr.P.C., 1973) and t Section 528 BNSS, 2023 (erstwh distinct legal domains, they are n substratum of a case.

Where a plea for upon and rejected on merits (and finality through subsequent di impugned) there arises a form existence of a prima facie case Anticipatory Bail, the Court provi investigation, signaling that the substantiated nature that they interrogation. Ergo, thereafter, th administrative exercise but a proc leap from the dismissal of Anti quashing of FIR, without any warranting an interference, is to validity. It is a cardinal principle o in toto et pars continetur i.e., th litigant cannot seek a superio subordinate relief has not been suggest that this Court, having fo warrant the "lesser" relief of pro factual matrix, grant the "large quashing. To entertain such a plea its head. Seeking the quashing of of an Anticipatory Bail petition, i that arises for consideration is as ght to be granted and the impugned F efrom) ought to be quashed. l issue that arises for cogitation is as ion 528 of the BNSS (erstwhile Sect entertained following the dismissal o he petitioner having remained at lar failed to surrender to the jurisdiction ile the statutory parameters governing er Section 482 BNSS, 2023 (erstwh the inherent powers of this Court un hile Section 482 Cr.P.C.) operate wit not entirely sequestered from the fact Anticipatory Bail has been delibera more so, when that rejection has attain dismissal of appeal, whereby it w midable judicial finding regarding

e. By declining the prayer for grant vides a judicial imprimatur to the ongo he allegations are of such gravity warrant, or atleast permit custod the investigation is not rendered a m cess stamped with judicial legitimacy. ticipatory Bail directly to a petition ny material change in circumstanc o fundamentally ignore this prima fa of legal logic, encapsulated in the max he part is contained in the whole, tha or remedy when the threshold for met. It is an inherent legal paradox found the petitioner’s case insufficien otection from arrest, would, on the sa ger" relief of absolute exoneration ea would be to turn the legal hierarchy f FIR, immediately following the fail in the absence of any material change

s to FIR as to ction of a arge, n of g the while nder ithin ctual ated ined was the t of oing y or odial mere To for nces, facie axim hat a or a x to nt to ame via y on ilure ge in MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-

7841-2025

circumstances, is a futile pursuit not support. This attempt to se inherently absurd legal endeavou misuse of the process of law; it judicial finality, as it compels the settled during earlier proceedin petitioner herein engages in a antithetical to the bona fides extraordinary jurisdiction of this C

Consequently, suc circumvent the statutory machin frustrate the administration of jus Court.

6.1. This Court must h aforementioned observations to m equity.

While it is forth petition for quashing of FIR is n the dismissal of an anticipatory b in the factual circumstances; how does not hold true. The dismissal not, ipso facto, operate as a juris application for anticipatory bail. ultimate and most larger relief, e its infancy, its denial merely sign proceed with an investigation. It d that the smaller and more transi unwarranted, as the criteria for interrogation differ fundamentall terminate a criminal proceeding a a quashing petition under Secti principle that the Court will not c the liberty of the individual rem under Article 21. Therefore, ev investigation, the door to anticip may still demonstrate that his ar administration of justice. To hold de-sac, unfairly penalizing a litiga t of an outcome that even the logic d ecure a second bite at the apple, is our. Such a manoeuvre is not merely t is rather an affront to the principles e court to re-deliberate a position alre ngs. By adopting such a course, a form of procedural artifice that required of a litigant invoking Court. uch petition born out of a desire nery, must be viewed as an attempt stice and cannot be countenanced by t hasten to add a necessary caveat to maintain the fine balance of procedu h coming from above discussion tha not entertainable, immediately, follow bail plea, absent a radical metamorpho owever, the converse of this proposit al of a petition for quashing the FIR d sdictional bar to the entertainment of

l. Since the quashing of an FIR is effectively terminating the prosecution gnifies that there is sufficient materia does not, by necessary implication, m sitory relief of protection from arres r evaluating the necessity of custod lly from the high threshold required altogether. Furthermore, the dismissa tion 528 BNSS is often based on conduct a mini-trial at the threshold; y mains a sacrosanct constitutional va ven if the Court declines to quash patory bail remains ajar, as the accu arrest is not a requisite for the effect d otherwise would be to create a legal c ant for invoking a higher remedy.

does s an ly a s of eady the t is the e to t to this the dural at a wing hosis ition does f an the n in al to mean st is odial d to al of the yet, alue h an used ctive cul- MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-

7. undispute seeking g dated 20.0 the Hon’b Supreme The judic the High Supreme the entitl sought to proceedin petitioner suspended differently

subsequen surrender purposes evasion o the extrao adopted b stratagem consequen the same

7841-2025

Reverting to the facts of th ed position before this Court grant of anticipatory bail stood d 03.2024. The challenge carried t ble Supreme Court also did n Court, which came to be dismi ial imprimatur thus accorded to t Court (and subsequently uphol Court) lends finality, at least fo ement of the petitioner to dis o be drawn by the learned S ngs cannot, however, be viewed i

r. The petitioner cannot be permi d animation by successively inv y couched prayer. It is an admitted and r nt to the aforesaid dismissals, th before the competent court no of investigation. Such recalcitran of the due process of law, disen ordinary and equitable jurisdic by the petitioner appears to b

m. It is more in the nature o nces of earlier adverse judicial o cause under the veneer of a dif he petition in hand, it remains that the prayer of the petition declined by this Court, vide Ord thereagainst by way of SLP befo not find favour with the Hon’ issed vide order dated 16.04.20 the rejection of anticipatory bail lding of dismissal by the Hon’ or the nonce, to the assessment scretionary relief. The distincti Senior counsel between the t in isolation from the conduct of itted to keep the criminal process voking a wider jurisdiction unde rather telling circumstance th he petitioner has neither chosen or made himself available for nt conduct, bordering on deliber ntitles the petitioner from invoki ction of this Court. The approa e nothing short of a hit and of an attempt to circumvent orders by re-agitating substantia fferent relief. Ergo, the issue is n

an ner der fore ble

24. by ble t of ion wo the s in er a hat, n to the rate ing ach try the ally not MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M- merely o extraordin circumven determina

7.1. ordinarily before the be miscon simultane maxim ‘h defiance applies. anticipato cannot be Permitting proceedin successive justice. Th fresh enti Moreover be exercis allegation of any co amount to to evade

7841-2025

f nomenclature or the form i nary jurisdiction of the Court c nting the consequences flow ation. It is trite that while declin y does not, and indeed cannot, ma e investigating agency. However nstrued as a license to the petitio eously, seek indulgence of the C he who seeks equity must do of the law cannot be permitte The petitioner, having failed ory bail both before this Court e permitted to achieve indirectly g such a course would not on ngs but would also encourage liti e litigation, thereby underminin he change in the complexion of t itlement to invoke the extraor r, the relief of quashing of FIR, sed sparingly and with circumsp ns, even if taken at their face val ognizable offence or where the c o palpable abuse of process. A p investigation cannot, in the sa n which relief is sought, as cannot be invoked as a means wing from an earlier judic ning anticipatory bail, the Co andate the surrender of the accus r, this procedural limitation cann oner to remain in abscondence an Court in collateral proceedings. T o equity; a litigant who stands d to seek its protection, squar d to secure the concession and the Hon’ble Supreme Cou what he could not secure direct nly erode the sanctity of judic igants to indulge in speculative a ng the administration of crimi the relief cannot, by itself, confe rdinary jurisdiction of this Cou being extraordinary in nature, is ection, and only in cases where lue, fail to disclose the commissi continuation of proceedings wou person who has consciously chos ame breath, seek adjudication

the of cial ourt sed not nd, The in rely of urt, tly. cial and nal er a urt. s to the ion uld sen on MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M- merits of this Cour declined petitioner reasoning

8.

(i) according petitioner after subm

(ii) shall not Court sh influenced

(iii) Septembe Ajay/mahavir

7841-2025

the very proceedings he seeks t rt as also the Hon’ble Supreme to extend the protective umb r, it would be wholly incongru g to entertain, much less allow, a In view of the prevenient rati The petition in hand, being n gly dismissed for the nonce whil r to approach this Court again, in mitting himself to the jurisdiction Any observations made and/ have any effect on the merits o hall proceed further, in accor d with them. Pending application(s), if any

er 03, 2026 r Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable:

to thwart. Viewed thus, when bo e Court have, upon considerati brella of anticipatory bail to uous and bereft of sound judic prayer for quashing of FIR. iocination, it is ordained thus: not entertainable at this juncture le reserving liberty in favour of n case the cause of action so ensu n of the process of law. / or submissions noted hereinabo of the case and the Sate/concern rdance with law, without bei y, shall also stand disposed of.

(SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE

Yes/No

Yes/No

oth on, the cial , is the ues, ove ned ing MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment