CRM-M/49948/2026 of DEVENDER Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 3 September 2026

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-49948

IN T IN T IN T IN T Devender State of Hary

Date of Deci Date of Deci Date of Deci Date of Deci Date of Uplo Date of Uplo Date of Uplo Date of Uplo

CORAM:

CORAM:

CORAM:

CORAM:

Present: Present: Present: Present:-

SUMEET GO SUMEET GO SUMEET GO SUMEET GO

Bharatiya Na Section 438 bearing FIR N under Sectio Lines, Bhiwa

2. learned Sessi dismissed, re 8-2026

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGAR CHANDIGAR CHANDIGAR CHANDIGAR

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-49948

49948-2

versus yana ision: sion: ision: sion: September 03 September 03 September 03 September 03, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 oading: oading: oading: oading: September September September September 05, 2026

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUM Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advoca Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Harya ***** ***** ***** ***** OEL OEL OEL OEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present petition has been file agarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Cr. P.C.) for grant of anticipato No.221 dated 10.08.2026, regist ons 326(g) and 3(5) of the BNS ani, District Bhiwani. The prosecution case, as menti ions Judge whereby anticipatory eads thus: “3. The present case was registe wife of Shri Mahesh Kumar, resid

B AND HARYANAAT B AND HARYANAAT B AND HARYANAAT B AND HARYANAAT RH RH RH RH

….Petitioner ….Respondent MEET GOEL MEET GOEL MEET GOEL MEET GOEL ate for the petitioner. ana. ed under Section 482 of the (for short ‘BNSS’) (erstwhile ory bail to the petitioner, in case tered for the offences punishable S, 2023, at Police Station Civil ioned in the order passed by the y bail plea of the petitioner was ered on the complaint of Smt. Babli ident of House No.1419, Sector-13,

r t e e e e l e s li 3, MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.05 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-49948

49948-2026

Bhiwani, on the allegations that she is owner of shop No.577, HUDA City Center, situated near L.I.C. office, Bhiwani and the same is in possession of Devender son of Rattan Singh, resident of Village Dhanana, at present residing of Old Housing Board, Bhiwani. The said shop was being run by Deepak and Devender as a guest house under the name and style of “Villa Guest House”. On dated 07.08.2026, she came to know that Devender in- collusion with Deepak and one another boy set the said shop on fire. On checking of nearby cameras, Deepak and one unknown boy were seen there. Request was made to take legal against them. On the basis of these allegations, case under Sections 326 (g) read with Section 3(5) of BNSS was registered. xx

xx

xx”

3. Learned counsel has submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are wholly concocted, improbable and devoid of any merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. It has been contended that the petitioner runs a private business under the name and style of “Villa Guest House”. It has been further contended that the said Villa was being let out by the petitioner to one Deepak, with whom an altercation took place when the petitioner had asked him to vacate the said premises on account of non-payment of rent by said Deepak. In the said altercation, the petitioner received multiple injuries and remained hospitalized. It has been contended that on the date of occurrence in question, the petitioner was still hospitalized, therefore, the circumstances constitute complete and unimpeachable documentary alibi in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner himself had got lodged a written complaint dated 08.08.2026 with the police, however, no action was taken by the police.

3.1. Learned counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation. It has been urged that no useful MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.05 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-49948

49948-2026

purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind bars. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, grant of the instant petition is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. It has been argued that the petitioner has been named as a conspirator. Learned State counsel has also submitted that the petitioner does not bear clean antecedents. It has been further argued that investigation, in the present case, is still under way and the petitioner is yet to be arrested. Given these circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable. It has been contended that, in case, the petitioner is accorded concession of anticipatory bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice as also influence/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses. Thus, the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.

6. As per the prosecution case, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. A perusal of the prosecution case as well as the material available on record, including the order passed by the Court below, whereby, anticipatory bail plea of the petitioner was dismissed, prima facie reveals that the petitioner in collusion with his co-accused set the shop of the complainant on fire. The nature of allegations does not persuade this Court to extend the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The other pleas raised by the petitioner, including those of false MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.05 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-49948

49948-2026

implication and his non-presence at the place of occurrence on the day of the incident, are matters to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence during the course of trial. Such disputed questions of fact(s) cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of consideration of the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail.

6.1. That apart, the petitioner himself has admitted in para-21 of the petition in hand that he is involved in multiple other FIR(s). The said criminal antecedents reveal that the petitioner is a habitual offender with a tendency to indulge in criminal activities. The criminal antecedents of the petitioner also raise a reasonable apprehension that, if enlarged on bail, he may indulge in similar criminal activities, misuse the concession of bail, or interfere with the fair course of justice. The possibility of his absconding or influencing prosecution witnesses also cannot be ruled out, particularly in view of his repeated involvement in criminal cases.

6.2. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR.

7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering 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. It is imperative that every person in the society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.05 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-49948

49948-2026

& fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that a prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and the preliminary investigation appear to establish 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. A profitable reference in this regard is being made to the dicta passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as St St St State ate ate ate v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039, the Supreme Court held as under, relevant whereof reads as under: “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented 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 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-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 offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.”

8. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that a prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record, preliminary investigation, serious allegations and the petitioner having no clean antecedents, appear to establish a reasonable basis for his accusation. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed dismissed dismissed dismissed. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.05 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-49948

49948-2026

9. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

(SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE September 03 September 03 September 03 September 03, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.05 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment