[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
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
authenticity of this order /judgment
"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.
The accused Pupender Singh is acquainted with him. The dispute, if any,
authenticity of this order /judgment
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.
authenticity of this order /judgment
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
authenticity of this order /judgment
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
authenticity of this order /judgment
