CRM-M/19630/2026 of SURESH KUMAR Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 22 July 2026

1. The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 in case bearing FIR No. 64 dated 10.03.2026 registered for the offences punishable under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to erstwhile Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code); Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927; Sections 27 and 29 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Police Station Chandi Mandir, District Panchkula.

2. On 13.05.2026, the following order was passed: “The status report dated 12.05.2026 filed on behalf of the respondent-State is taken on record.

The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was posted in District Panchkula only on

P a g e | 2

10.02.2026. On 12.02.2026, he gave information to Raghuvinder Singh, Forest Guard regarding having seen felled Kher trees. As per Raghuvinder Singh, he discovered the felled Kher trees only on 25.02.2026 and the FIR came to be registered on 10.03.2026. He contends that the petitioner has been named in the disclosure statement of Raghuvinder Singh, Forest Guard with the allegations that he too connived alongwith the other accused in the illegal felling of Kher trees.

Adjourned to 22.07.2026.

In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to appear before the SHO/Investigating Officer to join investigation and in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of SHO/Investigating Agency, subject to the following conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) BNSS:

(i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required;

(ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (

iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court and shall surrender his passport, if any”

3. Learned State counsel (on instructions) has submitted that the petitioner has joined investigation and he is not required for custodial interrogation.

4. Keeping in view the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and he is not required for custodial interrogation, the petition is allowed and the order dated 13.05.2026 granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner is hereby

P a g e | 3

made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS.

5. This order should not be treated as “blanket” order. It will not be read granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence.

6. Liberty is reserved in favour of State/complainant to move for cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioner violates any condition stipulated under Section 482(2) of BNSS or upon showing any other sufficient cause.

7. Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

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

(SUMEET GOEL) 22.07.2026

JUDGE Naveen Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether Reportable : Yes/No