[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sachin vs State Of Haryana on 19 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.73292 of 2025
Sachin ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ... Respondent
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 12.03.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 19.03.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 19.03.2026
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: Mr. Zorawar Singh Chauhan, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana,
for the respondent-State.
***
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
"BNSS") seeking anticipatory bail in the FIR mentioned below:-
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
312 05.11.2025 Bawal, District 110, 111(3), 115(2),
Rewari 117(2), 190, 191(3),
308(4), 351(3) and 61(2)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (For short
"BNS")
1 of 5
2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition
are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement
recorded by the complainant Suraj Pal alleging therein that he along with his
friend Rajesh had been supplying water through tankers in Urja Company at
Village Chirhara from the last five years. About one month back, accused
Sajjan Pehalwan @ Handa who was also engaged in the same business,
proclaimed that he would be supplying water in Urja Company and started
causing obstructions in his business. He gave quotation in the name of his
firm in the aforementioned company and w.e.f. 02/03.11.2025 started
supplying water in Urja Company. The complainant then offered to supply
water at lesser rates in the company and on coming to know about this fact,
accused Sajjan felt offended and started pressurizing the complainant to give
money to him in lieu of supplying water with the company. He made several
calls to him on 03.11.2025 which were not attended by the complainant. On
the same day at about 9:30 PM, when the complainant was closing his shop,
accused Sajjan, Bhagat @ Bhagti, Shakti, Teenu and Debu accompanied by
4-5 persons unknown to the complainant reached there. They were armed
with weapons and opened an assault upon the complainant thereby causing
injuries to him. The complainant was rushed to the hospital.
3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were
initiated. Accused Devender @ Debu was arrested on 06.11.2025. He
suffered disclosure statement on the basis of which the present petitioner and
some other persons were nominated as accused. The footages of the CCTV
2 of 5
camera installed in the vicinity of the site of occurrence were collected.
Some other accused were also arrested subsequently. The call detail records
of the cell phone numbers of the petitioner and co-accused were also
collected which showed that they had conversation with each other on
03.11.2025 and their locations were in the area of place of hatching
conspiracy. In one of the CCTV footages, the petitioner was seen leaving on
a scooter while carrying an iron pipe and was seen going towards Gol Circle
of Chirahada village. Investigation qua the co-accused stands completed and
challan has been presented whereas investigation qua the petitioner and co-
accused Jitender @ Jite is still underway. Apprehending his arrest, the
petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been
dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari vide
order dated 19.12.2025.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has
been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of
co-accused Devender @ Debu. He was not named in the FIR by the
complainant despite the fact that he was well known to him. He was not
present at the spot. He had no enmity with the victim. The prosecution is
relying upon CCTV footages of different places in one of which he is seen
sitting behind the accused Bhagat on a scooter while holding an iron rod.
However, this CCTV footage is a weak piece of evidence and cannot be
considered to be sufficient to connect him with the subject crime. No
specific overt act or injury has been attributed to him. He is ready to join
3 of 5
investigation. No recovery is to be effected from him. His custodial
interrogation is not required. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be
extended benefit of pre arrest bail.
5. Per contra, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana has
vehemently argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in
nature. He was seen along with the co-accused in the footage of the CCTV
camera installed in the vicinity of occurrence. He has also been seen in the
screenshots taken from CCTV, copies of which have been placed on record
as Annexures R-8 and R-9. For the purpose of conducting thorough and
proper investigation in the matter, his custodial interrogation is must. There
is no exceptional ground to extend benefit of anticipatory bail to him. It is,
therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
6. This Court has considered the rival submissions.
7. The petitioner by forming membership of an unlawful assembly
with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object thereof, is alleged
to have opened an assault upon the complainant on the fateful day thereby
causing serious injuries on his person. A pendrive stated to be containing
CCTV footages has been placed on record and when played on the official
computer of this Court, the file was found to be corrupted and as such, no
video could be seen from the same. However, along with the status report,
some screenshots of these footages have been placed on record which show
the presence of the present petitioner. As observed by the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner was seen as a pillion rider on the
4 of 5
scooty driven by the co-accused Bhagat on the day of occurrence in the same
vicinity. The call detail records of the cell phone of the petitioner also show
his presence at the same vicinity. Taking into consideration the nature of the
allegations as levelled against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered
opinion that his custodial interrogation is required for the purpose of fair and
thorough investigation in the matter. In case, the same is denied to the
investigation agency, that shall leave many glaring loopholes and gaps,
adversely affecting the investigation. 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. It is also well settled
proposition of law that powers for grant of pre arrest bail are to be exercised
in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and no such circumstance
has been made out in this case. 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)
19.03.2026 JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
