IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 04.02.2026 LUKMAN ......PETITIONER Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Sauhard Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Deepali Verma, Asstt. A.G. Haryana.

******

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

1. For the commission of offence punishable under Section 381 [Sections 379 and 407 added later on] of the Indian Penal Code, hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’ only, the FIR No.24 dated 21.01.2022 has been lodged in Police Station Khadki Daula, District Gurugram. In the above- mentioned case, the petitioner is apprehending arrest, and therefore, for the benefit of anticipatory bail he has approached this Court, by virtue of present petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

2. In nut-shell the facts emerging from record are that the above mentioned FIR came into being at the instance of Hemant Bhardwaj, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. The complainant moved a complaint alleging therein that he was posted as Legal Executive in ‘Instant Transport Solutions Pvt Ltd.’ According to above-named complainant the goods belonging to Amazon company were being transported in their truck, destined for Manesar, Gurugram and when the vehicle reached Bhangrola Warehouse, on suspicion of theft, raised by security personnel during the course of unloading of vehicle, enquiries were made from the driver, who confessed that a theft had taken place. It was also alleged by the above-named complainant that the above-mentioned theft was committed by the drivers of the truck namely Ishtiyak Ali and Wazid.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of above-mentioned information, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. 4. Reply has been filed by learned State counsel. The same be taken on record.

5. Heard.

6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, who is being harassed by the police merely because one of the co-accused in the above-said case, has nominated the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner although the petitioner was accorded the benefit of interim anticipatory bail and he has joined investigation yet the Investigating Officer is not satisfied and he is putting undue pressure upon the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the offence is otherwise triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate and nothing is left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner, and therefore, he is entitled for the benefit of anticipatory bail.

7. The learned State counsel has controverted the above-mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel in the present case a loss of Rs.44,00,000/- has been caused to the company by way of theft, and that there are very specific allegations against the petitioner that a part of stolen goods was sold to the petitioner. According to learned State counsel despite lot of efforts during the course of investigation, the petitioner has not cooperated with the Investigating Officer and therefore, the recovery is yet to take place. The learned State counsel has further contended that in the present case for the purpose of recovery of stolen goods, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of anticipatory bail.

8. The record has been perused carefully.

9. At the threshold it is relevant to note that the petitioner is seeking extraordinary remedy by claiming the benefit of anticipatory bail. With regard to such relief, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282’, has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that antic