IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (108) CRM-M-694-2026 Decided on: 24.03.2026 Uploaded on: 24.03.2026 Pawan Kumar Gupta ……Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Haryana ……Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Amit Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Jasdeep Singh Salooja, Advocate for the complainant (Through V.C.).

*****

Sumeet Goel (Oral):

1. Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.239 dated 04.07.2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC at Police Station Faridabad Old, District Faridabad; the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail.

2. On 13.01.2026, the following order was passed:

“Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.239 dated

04.07.2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC at Police Station Faridabad Old, District Faridabad; the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail.

Counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the FIR in question is primarily relating to a civil dispute, the edifice of the dispute is a General Power of Attorney pertaining to year 2013-2016, no civil suit has bene filed by the complainant-side till date which in fact has now become time-barred the petitioner is willing to join investigation and cooperate therein as per law. In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the dicta of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another, AIR 2014 SC 2756 and Mohd. Asfak Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand, 2023 AIR SC 3610.

Notice of motion.

On the strength of advance notice; Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG, Haryana has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent-State of Haryana.

At this stage; Mr. Jasdeep S. Salooja, Advocate (Through V.C.) has entered appearance on behalf of the complainant and filed his memorandum of appearance.

Adjourned to 03.02.2026.

Respondent-State as also the complainant are at liberty to file reply(s), if so advised.

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 16.01.2026 at 11:00 A.M. in concerned Police Station and join investigation. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. As and when further called by Investigating Officer, the petitioner shall join the investigation. He shall abide by the condition(s) enumerated under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.”

3. Learned State counsel (on instructions from SI Vijay) has submitted that the petitioner has joined investigation but his custodial interrogation is required for effecting the recovery of money in question.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant while raising arguments in tandem with the reply dated 16.03.2026 filed by the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that allegations raised against the said petitioner are serious in nature and in case the petitioner is extended the concession of anticipatory bail, there is all the likelihood that he may interfere with the investigation as also intimidate the witnesses and also the FIR-complainant.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties and upon perusal of the record; especially keeping in view the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation & cooperated therein and his custodial interrogation being sought for recovery of money in question; this Court is inclined to confirm the order dated 13.01.2026.

6. This order should not be treated as “blanket” order. It will not be read granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of