Mohit Sinha vs State Of Haryana
2026 Latest Caselaw 3960 P&H

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 3960 P&H
Judgement Date : 29 April, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mohit Sinha vs State Of Haryana on 29 April, 2026

                     112



                               In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh


                                                              Criminal Misc. No. M-13311 of 2026

                                                                        Date of Decision: 29.04.2026


                     Mohit Sinha
                                                                                        ... Petitioner(s)

                                                           Versus

                     State of Haryana
                                                                                      ... Respondent(s)

                     CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh.

                     Present:      Mr. Anand Dabas, Advocate
                                   for the petitioner(s).

                                   Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General,
                                   Haryana, for the respondent.

                     Surya Partap Singh, J.

1. This petition for anticipatory bail is the first petition filed by the

petitioner under Section 482 of 'the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

2023'. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 317

dated 09.12.2022, for the commission of offence punishable under

Section(s) 420, 467, 468, and 471 of 'the Indian Penal Code, 1860' Police

Station Sectors 17 & 18, District Gurugram, Haryana.

2. Vide order dated 12.03.2026, the petitioner was admitted to

interim anticipatory bail, subject to the condition of furnishing bonds to the

satisfaction of arresting officer. It was also directed that the petitioner shall

join the investigation.

3. Heard.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

in compliance with order dated 12.03.2026, the petitioner has already joined

the investigation, and that nothing has been left to be recovered from the

possession of petitioner. In view of above, the learned counsel for the

petitioner has requested that the order dated 12.03.2026 be made absolute.

5. The learned State counsel has controverted the above-

mentioned arguments. The learned State counsel, on the instructions of 'ASI

Mohan Puri', has contended that although the petitioner has joined the

investigation, but he did not cooperate and failed to facilitate recovery of

money. As per learned State counsel, in view of above, custodial

interrogation of the petitioner is necessary in the present case.

6. The record has been perused carefully.

7. With regard to fact-situation of this case and the above-

mentioned arguments, following are the relevant factors which are supposed

to be taken into consideration:-

i) that the petitioner has already joined the investigation;

ii) that the petitioner cannot be forced to assist the

prosecuting agency for the recovery of incriminating

material, which may harm his interests or may amount to

defeating his right of defence, as laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "Vinay

Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh" [Criminal

Appeal No. 939 of 2026, Decided on 16.02.2026];

iii) that no significant evidence is to be recovered in this

case, with the assistance of petitioner, as the money

cannot be treated to be a piece of evidence which may be

helpful in linking the petitioner with the commission of

crime;

iv) that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial

Magistrate;

v) that the name of petitioner does not figure in the FIR;

vi) that there is no prima facie evidence with regard to

receipt of money by the petitioner;

vii) that the recovery of any relevant document, as a piece of

evidence, can be facilitated by issuing a direction to the

petitioner to join the investigation on the call of

Investigating Officer;

viii) that the investigation and trial of the case are not likely

to be concluded in near future;

ix) that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not likely

to produce a fruitful result;

x) that there is nothing on record to show that while on

anticipatory bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with

the evidence or influence the witnesses; and