Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tirath Singh vs State Of Haryana on 29 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.27 of 2026
Tirath Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ... Respondent
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 23.04.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 29.04.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 29.04.2026
website
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or whether the full judgment is
pronounced
5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable
judgment, and reasons thereof
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Ms. Neha Jain, Advocate for
Mr. Naresh Kumar Jandoli, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana,
for the respondent-State.
None for the complainant.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short MANJU 2026.04.29 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.27 of 2026 -2- "BNSS") seeking anticipatory bail in the FIR mentioned below:-
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
175 09.06.2025 Beri, District 406 and 34 of IPC
Jhajjar
2. As per the allegations, the present petitioner along with the co-accused Pupender Singh @ Pinda and Ajmer Singh alias Sodhi had duped the complainant Priyanka and her family members of an amount of Rs.25 lakhs on the premise of sending the complainant to Canada. Neither she was sent abroad nor the money belonging to the family of the complainant was returned and on asking for the same, the petitioner had been extending threats to the complainant and her family, as such, she prayed for taking action in the matter.
3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. Accused Ajmer Singh had joined investigation and suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and also that the present petitioner who is his relative and his brother Pupender had taken Rs.10 lakhs in cash from the complainant. They had given cheques as security to Priyanka for sending her abroad. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Session Judge, Jhajjar vide order dated 22.12.2025.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is a simple milkman by profession. MANJU The accused Pupender Singh is acquainted with him. The dispute, if any, 2026.04.29 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.27 of 2026 -3- was between the complainant and Pupender Singh. No specific allegations have been levelled against him. He is not beneficiary of any transaction. No money has ever been transferred in his bank account. It is only on account of his familiarity with the co-accused that he had issued a cheque which was taken by the co-accused for the purpose of arranging loan. The petitioner had no idea about the manner in which the said cheque has been used. He has no concern with the complainant or her family. Even accused Pupender Singh has sworn an affidavit in his favour. A complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has already been filed by the complainant against him which is pending in Jhajjar Court. The co-accused Ajmer Singh has been extended benefit of anticipatory bail. No recovery is to be effected from him. He is ready to join investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be extended benefit of anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana has argued that the petitioner in connivance with the co-accused had caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs to the complainant. He had given a cheque amounting to Rs.25 lakhs as a security to the complainant. The said cheque has dishonoured. Issuance of this cheque itself shows his complicity in the crime. For the purpose of conducting proper investigation, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. There is no exceptional and extraordinary circumstance for grant of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
MANJU2026.04.29 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.27 of 2026 -4-
6. This Court has considered the rival submissions.
7. The petitioner, in connivance with the co-accused, is alleged to have duped the complainant of huge amount of money on the pretext of sending her abroad and thereby cheating her. Pendency of a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act itself cannot be stated to be a ground for granting benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offences as against the petitioner. For conducting thorough investigation in the matter, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. It is well settled proposition of law that arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. The powers of anticipatory bail are extra ordinary and the same are to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation, possibility of applicant's fleeing from justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail as such grant to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence. The Court has also to see that an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an inroad in the normal legal procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court. The Court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule and has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extra MANJU 2026.04.29 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.27 of 2026 -5- ordinary remedy. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. Keeping in view the gravity thereof, the role attributed to the petitioner, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation and also of tampering with the evidence, no ground has been made out for allowing the petition. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
8. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(MANISHA BATRA)
29.04.2026 JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MANJU
2026.04.29 15:49
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order /judgment
Chandigarh