104 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 07.11.2025 AARIF ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Mr. Kanwar Shehbaz Singh, Advocate and Ms. Srishti, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (ORAL)

1. This is the first petition filed under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case bearing FIR No.192 dated 01.05.2023 under Sections 407 and 34 of IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Tauru, District Nuh (Mewat).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the petitioner is the brother-in-law of the co-accused, namely, Azruddin, who was driving the vehicle from which the alleged theft is stated to have occurred. He further submits that there was an unexplained delay of 13 days in lodging the FIR. It is also argued that the case of the petitioner is on the same footing as of co- accused, namely, Mahesh Kumar and Saddam Hussain, who have already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Nuh, vide orders dated 28.11.2023. Moreover, Azruddin has also been granted regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.02.2025 passed in CRM-M-34457-2024. He further submits that petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the Investigating Agency.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and has opposed the bail on the ground that the co- accused, namely, Saddam Hussain and Mahesh Kumar were granted anticipatory bail by the Court as there is allegation against them that they participated in the commission of offence but present petitioner is kingpin and stolen articles are with him. The case of the petitioner is not on the same footing as of co-accused Saddam Hussain and Mahesh Kumar and his custodial interrogation is required as recovery is still to be effected.

5. Heard.

6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner as the case of the present petitioner is on different footing as he actively participated in the alleged incident. This Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for recovery of stolen mobile phones allegedly taken away from the truck. The petitioner is not entitled for relief of anticipatory bail in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as ‘CBI Vs. Anil Sharma, 1997 AIR Supreme Court

3806’ decided on 03.08.1997, wherein it has been held as under:-

“....custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favorable order under Section 438 of the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring would not conduct themselves as offenders.”

7. In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the present petition stands dismissed.

8. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be an expression of opinion by this Court les