CRM-M/26646/2026 of AMARJEET MANN Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 27 July 2026

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-266

IN T IN T IN T IN T

Amarjeet Ma 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

Nagarik Sura (erstwhile Se petitioner, in commission the BNS, 202

2. affidavit date thus:

646-2026

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-26646

26646-2 ann

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 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUM Mr. Abhishek Chhoker, Advoca Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Harya Ms. Ritu Punj, Legal Aid Couns ***** ***** ***** *****

OEL OEL OEL OEL, J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed aksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter ection 438 of the Cr. P.C.) for g n case bearing FIR No.102 da offences punishable under Sect 23, at Police Station Tehsil Camp The role of the petitioner (here ed 19.05.2026 filed by the respo

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 ate for the petitioner. ana. sel for the complainant. under Section 482 of Bharatiya r to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) grant of anticipatory bail to the ated 17.04.2026, registered for tions 304, 316(2) and 351(3) of p Panipat. ein), as per reply by way of an ondent – State of Haryana, reads r t a ) e r f n s MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.28 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-26646

26646-2026

“5. That the role of the petitioner in the crime/allegations against him are serious that he has committed illegal act for striking a deal with the accused doctor Dr. Mukesh Shehrawat to escape legal punishment to him/doctor. The petitioner further committed wrong act of misappropriating lakhs of rupees which petitioner had collected from the accused/doctor for being paid to the complainant/victim. There are also allegations that petitioner also snatched bike from the complainant’s son. There is a big scam which required to be busted by digging out more evidence for which purpose the custodial interrogation of the petitioner shall be very much necessary to unearth the truth and to recover the misappropriated amount.”

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 the petitioner has nothing to do with the offence in question and there is no material on record to show the complicity of the petitioner. Learned counsel has contended that the allegation against the petitioner of having snatched the motorcycle from the complainant’s son is wholly false, fabricated and devoid of merit. It has been contended that the complainant’s son was employed by the petitioner and that the motorcycle in question had been entrusted to him solely for the purpose of enabling him to discharge his official duties, and not for his personal use. Learned counsel has further argued that, upon the complainant’s son having driven the said motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, the petitioner merely resumed possession thereof. It has also been submitted that a compromise has already been arrived at between Dr. Mukesh Sehrawat and the complainant and, therefore, the petitioner has been unnecessarily implicated in, and dragged into, the present criminal proceedings.

3.1. Learned counsel has asserted that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Moreover, the custodial interrogation should not be used MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.28 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-26646

26646-2026

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, while raising submissions in tandem with the reply by way of an affidavit dated 19.05.2026, which is already on record, 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 that the petitioner has misappropriated lakhs of rupees, collected by him from Dr. Mukesh, which were to be forwarded to the complainant. It has further been submitted that the petitioner had also snatched motorcycle of the complainant’s son. Learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner is/ has been involved in other FIR(s).

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 he is enlarged on 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.

4.2. Learned counsel for the complainant has also vehemently opposed the grant of petition in hand by arguing that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner had snatched the motorcycle of son of the complainant. Learned MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.28 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-26646

26646-2026

counsel has also argued that the petitioner has misappropriated lakhs of rupees meant for the complainant. It has been, thus, contended that, in case the petitioner is released on anticipatory bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice as also interfere with the prosecution witnesses/ evidence and, hence, he ought not to be extended the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition in hand 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. The allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious inasmuch as he is alleged to have acted in concert with the co-accused, Dr. Mukesh Sehrawat, with a view to facilitate the said doctor in evading legal consequences. It emerges from the prosecution case that the allegation, prima facie, is not merely of extending financial assistance, but of attempting to obstruct the due course of law by inducing the complainant to refrain from pursuing legal recourse in respect of an alleged offence of medical negligence. It is further alleged that the petitioner misappropriated several lakhs of rupees, which were otherwise intended to be paid to the complainant. The petitioner is also accused of having snatched the motorcycle belonging to the complainant’s son. The aforesaid allegations are grave in nature and disentitle the petitioner from being extended the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.28 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-26646

26646-2026

6.1. More so, the petitioner is/ has been involved in 14 other FIR(s). Such criminal antecedents also weigh against the petitioner and dissuade this Court from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction to grant him the concession of anticipatory bail. 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, (1997) 7 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 v. Anil Sharma, (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- MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.28 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-26646

26646-2026

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. 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