Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surender Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 24 January, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-41199-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-41199-2024
Reserved on: 13.01.2025
Pronounced on: 24.01.2025
Surender Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Shubham Kaushik, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Aashish Bishnoi, D.A.G., Haryana.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
459 02.08.2024 City Hansi, District 467, 471, 218, 384, 511,
Hisar 120-B IPC
1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before
this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS],
seeking anticipatory bail.
2. In paragraph 22 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal
antecedents.
3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which
reads as follows:-
"2. That the brief facts of the case are that a written
complaint bearing Sr. No. 1377-PU dated 13.07.2024 received in
S. P. Office, Hansi from Treasury office, Hisar for taking 134
action against Virender Jangra Advocate and Surender Kumar
(Present Petitioner-accused) regarding stealing government
documents, preparing false evidence by conspiring and tampering
with it, blackmailing with the intention of extorting money and
committing an offence under Official Secrets Act. These are the
facts of the case that complainant Satish Kumar Siwach is working
as District Treasury officer, Hisar and Sub Treasury Hansi comes
under the jurisdiction of the complainant. From letter No. 46
dated 09.07.2024, complainant came to know that the present
petitioner and co- accused have stolen the record from the Sub
Treasury office, Hansi without authorization and later prepared a
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-41199-2024
fake paper by making fake signature of Rajpati and some other
tampering in the photocopy of the stolen record and prepared
false testimony with the intention of getting Surender Singh son of
Manphool Singh (retired Asst. Superintendent) and the
complainant punished. It is further submitted that present
petitioner and co-accused have stolen the documents from the
government office by threatening to implicate the complainant. On
05.07.2024 at night from 8:38 PM to 8:44 PM, complainant
received seven continuous calls from an unknown mobile number
918168211789 which he could not attend. Thereafter, five
whatsapp messages came from the same mobile number between
10:14 PM to 10:16 PM, out of which he could read only the three
messages from the notification window which are (1) Ke Hall
Pardhan (How are You) (2) Ofer (Officer), (3) 10 Lakh Rupay do
warna (Give me Rs. 10 Lakhs otherwise), then the last three
messages were deleted. Thereafter, when the complainant
messaged reply and asked what were the messages and why were
deleted, no response was done. Complainant suspected that the
mobile number belongs to the present petitioner, co-accused or
someone related to them and they have done to extort Rs.10 Lacs
from him by threatening. Even before this, present petitioner and
co-accused have been sending unknown persons to extort money
from the complainant illegally. Present petitioner- accused
remained posted in Sub Treasury Office, Hansi during the period
from 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2023 on contract basis and he was
relieved from the services w.e.f. 31.12.2023 as per the government
policy, Due to which he is having a grudge against the treasurer
and other employees of the department. During his tenure, he has
stolen these documents by misusing his position and violated the
confidentiality of the office alongwith his brother co-accused
Virender Jangra, Advocate, he conspired and prepared false and
forged documents with the intention of blackmailing the
complainant and used the forged documents to trap the
complainant in a false case. A prayer was made for taking legal
action against the accused Persons. On the basis of said
complaint, FIR under sections 167, 471, 218, 384, 511, 120-B IPC
was registered."
4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and
contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the
petitioner and their family.
5. The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.
6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read
as follows:
"5. During the course of investigation of the case, present
petitioner played an important role for committing the offence and
role of the present petitioner is described as under:
It has been found that present petitioner along-with co- accused
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-41199-2024
i.e. his real brother in conspiracy had been stolen the alleged
documents from the office file and gave the alleged document to his
brother i.e. co-accused Virender. After that ISIO Co-accused
prepared false and forged documents with the te intention of
blackmailing the complainant and used the forged documents to
trap the complainant in a false case and to extort money from him.
It is specifically mention here that present petitioner and co-
accused had not been produced any RTI document during their
interrogation. It is further submitted that present petitioner
specifically named in the FIR. It is further submitted that present
petitioner and his brother did not produce any such type of
document during their interrogation that they received the alleged
document through RTI. Even the Department also mentioned in its
report that they had stolen the Government official
document/record and he i.e. present petitioner was terminated from
his service. Copy of the charge report is annexed herewith as
Annexure R-2.
It is specifically submitted that allegations levelled against the
present petitioner-accused are serious in nature. It is further
submitted that the present petitioner-accused is to be interrogated
and recovery of stolen government documents is to be affected from
him and mode of operandi. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the
present petitioner-accused is necessary for proper and effective
investigation. It is submitted that investigation of the case is
pending yet."
7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a false and fabricated case. Petitioner
was working on contractual basis as Computer Operator in the office of Sub-Treasury,
Hansi from 2011 to 2023 but his contract was terminated despite the fact that he was very
good. Feeling aggrieved, he had come up before this Court by filing writ petition and
subsequently he filed representation and all this led to false implication. Counsel for the
petitioner further submits that he has been falsely implicated by cooking a story and has
clean antecedents.
8. Perusal of the petition makes it a case beyond preponderance of probability in
favour of the petitioner. In addition to that, nature of allegations would not justify either
custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration.
9. Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The
evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but
this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of
anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pre-
trial incarceration.
10. The Police did not arrest the petitioner; if they intended to arrest the petitioner, it
was not impossible. A perusal of the reply does not point out the steps taken to arrest the
accused.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-41199-2024
11. Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie
analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there
would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre-trial incarceration at this
stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. Without
commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and
for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. This order shall
come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.
12. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the
petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail in the FIR captioned above subject to
furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a
Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa
Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court
must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.
13. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following
personal identification details:
1. AADHAR number
2. Passport number (If available) and when the
attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or
considers the accused a flight risk.
3. Mobile number (If available)
4. E-Mail id (If available)
14. This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.
15. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation within seven days of uploading
this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and
when called by the Investigator. The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioner shall join the
investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and
shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of
failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During
the investigation, the petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language,
inhuman treatment, etc.
16. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the
concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence,
influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any
witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the
Court.
Jyoti Sharma 17. In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-41199-2024
arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section
prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sections mentioned above,
then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added
section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding
the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above; then, in that case, the
Investigator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioner notice of a minimum of seven
days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.
18. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner
indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an application for cancellation of
this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.
19. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
20. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any
Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the
official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants
to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may
download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.
21. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
24.01.2025
Jyoti Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
