Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mukeem @ Mukim vs State Of Haryana on 11 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
103 CRM-M-62911-2025
Date of decision: 11.11.2025
Mukeem @ Mukim ....Petitioner
V/s
State of Haryana ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Arjun Atri, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Addl.AG, Haryana.
*****
SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the BNSS')
for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR
No.150 dated 27.09.2025, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 190, 191(3), 115(2), 351(3) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 25 of the
Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Bichhor, District Nuh (Mewat).
2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that on 27.09.2025, the
complainant had submitted a written complaint seeking legal action against
the accused persons, wherein it was stated that on 25.09.2025, at about
10:30 AM, the petitioner (herein) alongwith other accused persons was
digging a Neem tree with a JCB machine. The complainant along with Irfan
objected to the same, stating that they had purchased the land from one
Saddak. However, the accused persons started abusing them, leading to an
altercation. It was further alleged that thereafter, the petitioner (herein)
1 of 8
CRM-M-62911-2025 Page |2
alongwith Imran, Mustafa, Aamir (sons of Gaffar), Gaffar, and Azim (sons
of Isa) arrived at the spot armed with sticks and firearms. Upon reaching, the
petitioner (herein) struck Irfan on his waist with a stick and also fired two
gunshots, which narrowly missed Irfan. Accused Imran allegedly caught
hold of the complainant's collar and hit him on the stomach, while Aamir
kicked him on the waist. Subsequently, all the assailants jointly assaulted the
complainant and Irfan with fists and kicks and extended threats to kill them.
Thereafter, their family members took them to Punhana Hospital for medical
treatment. On the basis of these allegations, an FIR was registered under
Sections 190, 191(3), 115(2), 351(3) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 25 of the
Arms Act, 1959
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
accused is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present
case due to a existing land dispute related to the digging of a Neem tree.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has no
role whatsoever with the alleged commission of offence. Learned counsel
has iterated that neither any specific injury has been attributed to the
petitioner nor any motive has come forth to show allege involvement of the
petitioner in committing the offence in question. Learned counsel asserts
that the in the instant case, the FIR fails to include material facts, which
further raised questions about its credibility and fairness. 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, nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and he
is ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be
served by sending him behind the bars. It is lastly submitted by the learned
2 of 8
CRM-M-62911-2025 Page |3
counsel that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be granted the
concession of the anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra, the learned State Counsel opposed the grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence is of a serious
nature. The investigation with respect to the petitioner is still ongoing. As
per the investigation, the petitioner alongwith his co-accused attacked upon
the complainant party and inflicted injuries upon them. Learned State
counsel has further submitted that the video recording of the incident reveals
that the petitioner was seen carrying country-made pistols at the time of the
occurrence. 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. According to
learned State counsel, in case the petitioner is granted the concession of pre-
arrest, at this stage, it may impede the ongoing investigation.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have
gone through the available record of the case.
6. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Kishor Vishwasrao Patil vs. Deepak
Yashwant Patil and another passed in SLP(Crl) No.1125-2022, relevant
whereof reads as under:
"74. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the investigation
intended to secure several purposes. There may be circumstances in which
the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material
facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the
investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance between the
individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating
agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to
collect more information which may lead to recovery of relevant
information.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
3 of 8
CRM-M-62911-2025 Page |4
xxx xxx xxx xxx
75. Observing that the arrest is a part of the investigation intended to
secure several purposes, in Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B. [Adri
Dharan Das v. State of W.B., (2005) 4 SCC 303 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 933] ,
it was held as under : (SCC p. 313, para 19)
"19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to
secure several purposes. The accused may have to be questioned in detail
regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and
aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons, if any, in the
crime. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide
information leading to discovery of material facts. It may be necessary to
curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without
hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim
of the crime, to prevent his disappearance, to maintain law and order in
the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest may become an inevitable
part of the process of investigation. The legality of the proposed arrest
cannot be gone into in an application under Section 438 of the Code. The
role of the investigator is well defined and the jurisdictional scope of
interference by the court in the process of investigation is limited. The
court ordinarily will not interfere with the investigation of a crime or with
the arrest of the accused in a cognizable offence. An interim order
restraining arrest, if passed while dealing with an application
under Section 438 of the Code will amount to interference in the
investigation, which cannot, at any rate, be done under Section 438 of the
Code."
76. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra
[Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC
694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514], the Supreme Court laid down the factors
and parameters to be considered while dealing with anticipatory bail. It
was held that the nature and the gravity of the accusation and the exact
role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made
and that the court must evaluate the available material against the
accused very carefully. It was also held that the court should also consider
whether the accu have been made only with the object of injuring or
humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.
77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre [Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 :
(2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] and other judgments and observing that
anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai
Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar [Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar,
4 of 8
CRM-M-62911-2025 Page |5
(2012) 4 SCC 379 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 468] , the Supreme Court held as
under : (SCC p. 386, para 19)
"19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are
required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court
must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in
exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that
the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse
his liberty. (See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran [D.K. Ganesh
Babu v. P.T. Manokaran, (2007) 4 SCC 434 :(2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 345] ,
State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain [State of
Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain, (2008) 1 SCC
213 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 176] and Union of India v. Padam Narain
Aggarwal [Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal, (2008) 13 SCC
305 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 1] .)"
Economic offences
78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to
be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic
offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the
society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain
[Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2 SCC 105 :
1998 SCC (Cri) 510], it was held that in economic offences, the accused is
not entitled to anticipatory bail."
15. In Sushila Agrawal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and
Another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, Constitution Bench of this Court
held that while considering an application for grant of pre-arrest bail the
Court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the
likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with
evidence or likelihood of fleeing justice. The Court held:-
"92.4. Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such
as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the
applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to
grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a
matter of discretion; equally whether and if so, what kind of
special conditions are to be imposed (or not imposed) are
dependent on facts of the case, and subject to the discretion of the
court."
7. As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably,
serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. As per the
version put forth by the prosecution, the petitioner (herein) alongwith his co-
5 of 8
CRM-M-62911-2025 Page |6
accused had opened attack upon the complainant - party and caused injuries
to them. As per the case set up by the prosecution, the video recording of
the incident clearly depicts the petitioner carrying a country-made pistol at
the time of occurrence. The petitioner has specifically been named in the
FIR in question.
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.
8. Furthermore, the investigation is still at a crucial stage, and
custodial interrogation of the petitioner is considered necessary to unearth
the complete facts and to ascertain involvement of any other persons
connected with the case. The petitioner is yet to be arrested and grant of
anticipatory bail, at this stage, may prejudice the ongoing investigation. The
apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the petitioner, if released on
bail, may abscond or attempt to influence witnesses also appears to be not
without basis. Given the seriousness of the offence, the stage of investigation
and possibility of tampering with evidence or obstructing justice, this Court
is of the view that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail at
this juncture. Moreover, in view of the serious allegations, the custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable and crucial for unearthing the
broader conspiracy and identifying the other accomplices that may be within
the exclusive knowledge of the petitioner. Moreover, the grant of
anticipatory bail at this premature stage may seriously prejudice the ongoing
investigation and potentially result in tampering with evidence or
influencing material witnesses.
6 of 8
CRM-M-62911-2025 Page |7
9. 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
wide 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 preliminary investigation, appear to
be established 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 v. Anil Sharma
[State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 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."
7 of 8
CRM-M-62911-2025 Page |8
10. In view of the gravity of the allegations and nature of offence,
since the necessity of custodial interrogation would arise for a fair and
thorough investigation, 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, custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth.
The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
11. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression
of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
November 11, 2025
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
8 of 8
