CRM-M/36263/2026 of ABHISHEK DAHIYA Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 28 July 2026

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNS”) is for the grant of pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.407, dated 10.12.2025, registered under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Haryana Amendment Bill, 2020) and Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 238(a), 253(a) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNS”) at Police Station Sector 40, District Gurugram.

2. On 09.07.2026, the following order was passed by a Coordinate Bench:- “This petition for pre-arrest bail is the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of 'the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023'. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.407 dated 10.12.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Haryana Amendment Bill, 2020) and Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 238(a), 253(a) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Sector-40, District Gurugram.

2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of 'Station House Officer, Police Station Sector-40 Gurugram'. According to above-named police officer, on 09.12.2025 at about 02:50 pm, he received a tip-off that a huge quantity of liquor, contained in boxes, having no hologram and track trace strips, were stored at the liquor vend of 'M/s Surender' near Signature Tower-14.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned information the Officers of Excise Department were contacted and DETC (X) constituted a team comprising of 'AETO(X) Kunal Yadav', Excise Inspectors, 'Balwan Singh' and 'Anil Sheoran', and others staff. As per prosecution, when the raid was executed, it was found that 3921 bottles kept in boxes and 176 loose bottles of foreign liquor were there, which were not carrying hologram and track traces strips. According to prosecution, on recovery of abovementioned huge quantity of liquor, the FIR was lodged and the investigation taken up.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana appears on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with.

6. Heard.

7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, the petitioner has nothing to do with the liquor vend, where the raid was conducted, and that the allegations against the petitioner are that the liquor, which was meant for transportation to Goa through another company, was recovered during the course of raid at the liquor vend at Gurugram. With regard to above, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no concern, whatsoever, with the liquor vend, where the recovery had taken place, and that otherwise also, it stands verified from the officials of the Customs Department that, whatever, the liquor was purchased by the company for which petitioner is working as consultant, has already been exported to UAE.

8. In view of above, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no concern/link with the recovered liquor, and that he is being prosecuted, merely on the basis of a disclosure statement suffered by co-accused. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the abovesaid disclosure statement is inadmissible in evidence.

9. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that owner of the liquor vend has already been accorded the benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court, vide order dated 07.05.2026, and that nothing has to be recovered from the possession of petitioner.

10. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, the liquor, which was found at the liquor vend, actually belonged to the petitioner, and that the co-accused in this regard has suffered a disclosure statement.

11. The record has been perused carefully.

12. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision:-

i. that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate;

ii. that the benefit of anticipatory bail has already been accorded to co-accused, namely Surender;

iii. that nothing has been recovered from the possession of petitioner;

iv. that the only evidence, collected by the investigating agency against the petitioner is the disclosure statement of co- accused of the petitioner, and there is a question mark with regard to credibility & admissibility of above-mentioned statement in evidence, as the same was recorded when the co-accused was in police custody. Since pursuant to above-mentioned disclosure statement recovery of any incriminating material or discovery of fact has not taken place, prima facie the abovementioned statement appears to be hit by Section-23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam; v. that the investigation and trial are not likely to be concluded in near future;

vi. that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not likely to produce a fruitful result;

vii. that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose;

viii. that there is nothing on record to show that while on interim anticipatory bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and

ix. that there is nothing on record to show that while on interim anticipatory bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the investigation.

13. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled for interim anticipatory bail.

14. Thus, it is hereby ordered that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of arresting officer. However, in the meantime the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when notice is served upon him, in writing, by the Investigating Officer. He shall abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.

15. List on 28.07.2026.

16. Let status report and detailed reply, if any, be filed by the State by next date.

17. To be shown in urgent list.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the aforesaid order dated 09.07.2026, the petitioner has duly joined investigation.

4. Learned counsel representing the State of Haryana, on instructions from ASI Pardeep Kumar, posted at CIA Sector 43, Gurugram, submits that in compliance of the order dated 09.07.2026, the petitioner has duly joined investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required.

5. In view of the fact that petitioner has duly joined investigation and keeping in view the statement given by learned counsel representing the State of Haryana, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 09.07.2026 passed by this Court is made absolute, subject to compliance of the provisions as envisaged under Section 482(2) BNSS.

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)

JUDGE July 28, 2026 vcgarg Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable

: Yes/No