CRM-M/40008/2026 of MUKESH KUMAR Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER on 27 August 2026

1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case vide FIR No.70 dated 09.05.2026 under Sections 406 and 506 IPC, Police Station Jui Kalan, District Bhiwani. This is the first petition for anticipatory bail.

2. On 22.07.2026, following order was passed: “Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.70 dated 09.05.2026 under Sections 406 and 506 IPC, Police Station Jui Kalan, District Bhiwani. This is the first petition for anticipatory bail. As per allegations, there were friendly terms between complainant and the petitioner. Petitioner requested the complainant to complete the project of construction of water tank and plantation of trees in his fields in the month of September, 2023 under the National Horticulture Mission for the year 2023-24. Complainant was asked to bear the entire expenditure of construction and plantation and assured that petitioner would pay the entire expenses after receiving subsidy. The work of construction of water tank and plantation was completed in the fields of the petitioner by incurring expenditure of ₹10,95,000/-. Later, the Horticulture Department transferred ₹7,50,000/- in the account of petitioner in March, 2024 plus ₹3,45,000/- in the account of other co- sharers but petitioner failed to pay up as per assurance and extended life threats to complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was an agriculturist, owner of 09 acres land over which water tank was constructed by the complainant. The matter in dispute was civil in nature as there was dispute regarding payments. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner received ₹7,50,000/- in his account as subsidy and entire payment was made to respondent No.2 in cash, by withdrawing the subsidy. The water tank constructed by the complainant was in broken state, just after two years of its construction. He further submits that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani after hearing both sides, released petitioner on interim anticipatory bail with a direction to join investigation. Petitioner joined investigation and reported to the Investigating Officer on 03 occasions. Yet, the Court was informed that petitioner refused to sign disclosure statement, on which account, anticipatory bail was refused. He refers to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shally Mahant alias Sandeep Vs. State of Punjab 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 146 to submit that the alleged conduct of the petitioner did not automatically constitute non-cooperation in the investigation and if an accused appeared before the Investigating Officer, pursuant to interim protection, failure to provide specific answer or to sign disclosure statement was not sufficient ground to deny bail. He further submits that petitioner was still ready and willing to join and facilitate investigation. Notice of motion. Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Mr. Rajesh K. Sheoran, Advocate appears on behalf of respondent No.2 and undertakes to file his power of attorney in the Registry of this Court. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Vijender, assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail arguing that anticipatory bail was declined by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani as petitioner was not cooperating in investigation. Now, custodial interrogation was necessitated to conduct fair and effective investigation and to recover the amount. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of arrest, petitioner shall be released on interim anticipatory bail subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. Petitioner shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that matter can be amicably resolved by way of Mediation and matter may be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. Accordingly, parties are directed to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 27.07.2026, to work out the modalities of amicable settlement between them. For any other details parties may contact Dr. Amarpreet Kaur Sandhu, Co-ordinator, Mediation and Conciliation Centre, M. No. 9888881287, e-mail-supdt.mcc-phc@aij.gov.in. Adjourned to 27.08.2026, awaiting report of the Mediator.”

3. Report of Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court has been received. As per report of the Mediator, the matter could not be settled.

4. Learned State counsel, on instructions from Inspector Suresh, concedes that petitioner had joined investigation and further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required.

5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, as enumerated above, but without commenting on merits, order dated 22.07.2026, granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute, subject to conditions laid down in Section 482(2) Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

6. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 27.08.2026 HS.CHAUHAN

Whether Speaking/Reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No