CRM-M/39968/2026 of SANJEEV @ KALA Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 27 July 2026

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-39968

106 (2 106 (2 106 (2 106 (2nd nd nd nd case) case) case) case) IN T IN T IN T IN T

Sanjeev @ K State of Hary

Date of Date of Date of Date of Deci Deci Deci 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

2023 (erstwh the petitioner Sections 308 2023, at Poli

2. Dharam Sing at the Old B who had obt Parking”, alo 8-2026

) HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGAR CHANDIGAR CHANDIGAR CHANDIGAR

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-39968

39968-2 Kala

versus

yana

ision: sion: ision: sion: July 27 July 27 July 27 July 27, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 oading: oading: oading: oading: July July July July 28, 2026

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUM Mr. Shokeen Singh Verma, Adv Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Harya ***** ***** ***** *****

OEL OEL OEL OEL, J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed hile Section 438 Cr. P.C.) seeki r, in case bearing FIR No.83 dat 8(4), 308(5), 351(3), 127(2), 11 ce Station City Bahadurgarh, Di The gravamen of the FIR in q gh (the complainant), who had be us Stand, Najafgarh Road, Baha tained the parking contract unde ong with his son Vivek (co-accu

B AND HARYANA AT B AND HARYANA AT B AND HARYANA AT B AND HARYANA AT RH RH RH RH

....Petitioner

....Respondent MEET GOEL MEET GOEL MEET GOEL MEET GOEL vocate for the petitioner. ana. d under Section 482 of BNSS, ing grant of anticipatory bail to ted 27.03.2026, registered under 15, 3(5) and 61(2) of the BNS, strict Jhajjar. question is that on 27.03.2026, een running a Chole-Kulche cart adurgarh, alleged that Hari Om, er the name and style of “Vivek used) [name further corrected, in r t , o r , , t , k n MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.28 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-39968

39968-2026

supplementary statement of the complainant, as ‘Vishal’], had been illegally demanding `300/- per day or `5,000/- per month from the cart vendors for permitting them to run their carts. The complainant further alleged that Hari Om had also been threatening the cart vendors by claiming that his son would soon be released from jail and that Kala Mandothiya (petitioner herein) was his close associate.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR. Learned counsel has submitted that main accused, namely, Hari Om, who had allegedly extended threats and illegally demanded money from the complainant and other vendors, has already been granted the concession of bail by the learned Court below. Learned counsel has submitted that necessary ingredients of provisions of Sections 308(4) and 308(5) are not attracted, as neither the petitioner was present at the spot nor had he given beatings to the complainant or any other street vendor. Learned counsel has argued that there is unexplained delay in lodging the FIR in question, which creates dent in the prosecution story rendering it completely doubtful. Learned counsel has submitted that the allegation against the petitioner— that the principal accused, Hari Om, acted on his instructions and that the petitioner is a close associate of the said accused—is nothing more than a bald and unsubstantiated assertion, bereft of any credible material or independent evidence to lend it support. Learned counsel has also submitted that complainant and other vendors have voluntarily executed affidavits MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.28 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-39968

39968-2026

dated 07.05.2026 (Annexure P-3 colly) clarifying the misunderstanding and non-involvement of the petitioner in this case.

3.1. Learned counsel has asserted that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Moreover, the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and, hence, no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4. Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of an affidavit dated 24.07.2026, in Court today, and the same is taken on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said status report, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. It has been stated, in Para-15 of the said status report, as under: “15.

15.

15.

15. Role of the petitioner: Role of the petitioner: Role of the petitioner: Role of the petitioner: That the present petitioner Sanjeev @ Kala is actively involved in the present offence. As per his directions, co-accused Hariom and Vishal extorted Rs.300/- per day or Rs.5,000/- per month from cart vendors by using the influence and name of the present petitioner to create fear amongst the cart vendors. That the preset petitioner also took 50% from the total extorted amount. That the petitioner through co-accused Hariom and Vishal extorted Rs.8,000/- previously from various cart vendors in the name of rent for running their cart at the bus stand and out of which Rs.4,000/- came in his share. That the petitioner received Rs.4,000/- out of total extorted amount of Rs.8,000/- from the co-accused Hariom. Thus, the petitioner played an active and direct role in the alleged acts of extortion, criminal intimidation and assault.”

4.1. It is, thus, argued that given the seriousness of the offence, there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioner may abscond from the process of justice and/or tamper with the prosecution witnesses/ evidence, if MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.28 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-39968

39968-2026

he is granted the concession of anticipatory bail. Learned State counsel has iterated that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative for the purpose of effective and fair investigation and to unearth the case of the prosecution. On these submissions, dismissal of the present petition is entreated for.

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 and the material available on record, prima facie, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It emerges from the prosecution case that co-accused – Vishal @ Vishal Duhan stopped the complainant in a room and threatened to kill him, and had also demanded Rs.300/- per day or Rs.5000/- per month in order to run the cart at the bus stand. Further, as per prosecution case, co-accused – Hari Om (father of the petitioner) had also demanded money from the complainant as well as other cart runners and threatened them as well. The prosecution case further reveals that co-accused – Hari Om had threatened the complainant and other cart vendors by representing the petitioner (herein) to be his close associate, to instil fear in them and compel them to pay the amount illegally demanded. Perusal of the status report filed by the State, prima facie, reveals that the petitioner had received Rs.4,000/- out of total extorted amount of Rs.8,000/- from co-accused – Hari Om, and, thus, the petitioner had played an active role in the alleged offence.

6.1. The factum of affidavit(s) having been tendered by the complainant and other cart vendors does not persuade this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner keeping in view the nature of allegations. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.28 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-39968

39968-2026

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 a 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 & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and the preliminary investigation appears to establish a 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. In State State State State v. Anil Sharma, ( v. Anil Sharma, ( v. Anil Sharma, ( v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 1997) 7 1997) 7 1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC

p. 189, para 6) “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.”

MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.28 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-39968

39968-2026

8. In view of the seriousness and gravity of allegations and the role attributed to the petitioner, this Court finds no compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the petitioner. Granting bail, at this stage, would not only undermine the administration of justice but may also embolden the accused.

9. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, the investigation is still underway and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is being sought for effective investigation and to unearth the prosecution case. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed dismissed dismissed dismissed.

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

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

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

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE July 27 July 27 July 27 July 27, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.28 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment