IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 13.01.2026 Sumer Singh Yadav ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 in FIR No.0032 dated 05.12.2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 13(1)D, 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 120-B of IPC, 1860 at Police Station ACB Gurugram, District State Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau, Haryana.

2. The present FIR arises out of Enquiry No.2 dated 07.04.2021 initiated by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Haryana, pursuant to directions issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana. The enquiry pertained to allegations of misuse of official position in the award of a tender for outsourcing Assistant Line Men (ALMs) and Shift Attendants (SAs) in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (DHBVN), Gurugram. During the enquiry, it was found that Tender No. GC-37/2008-09/GGN dated 07.01.2009 was floated for outsourcing 168 personnel. Four firms participated and M/s Sandhu Security Services was awarded the contract being the lowest bidder. However, the enquiry revealed that the said firm did not fulfill the mandatory tender conditions, including possession of a valid labour licence for DHBVN and requisite experience of providing similar services of at least 25 skilled technical personnel for two years. The licences and experience certificates submitted were found to be either inadequate or wholly unrelated to the nature and scale of work tendered. It was further found that despite these deficiencies, the tender was approved and the work order issued by the concerned DHBVN officials, namely the then Superintending Engineer (petitioner herein), Deputy General Managers and Accountant thereby violating the prescribed tender conditions. Statements of ALMs/SAs revealed that some of them had paid amounts ranging from Rs.2,800 to Rs.3,500 to representatives of M/s Sandhu Security Services as security money, without issuance of any receipts. A report of the Technical Officer report also confirmed gross violation of tender conditions. As per the prosecution case, as set out from the petition in hand, the petitioner, while holding the post of then S.E. (Retd.), OP circle, DHBVN, Gurugram and being a public servant, misused his official position and in connivance with the co-accused, demanded and accepted illegal gratification for extending undue official favour to the co-accused namely Ajay Sandhu proprietor of M/s Sandhu Security Services. On receipt of a complaint, the Anti Corruption Bureau conducted verification proceedings, during which the demand of illegal gratification prima facie stood established. On these set of allegations, the FIR in question to be registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR and the same has been registered on the basis of a motivated and mala fide complaint.

Learned counsel has further iterated that there is no direct evidence to establish any demand or acceptance of illegal gratification by the petitioner and the entire prosecution case rests on mere conjectures and assumptions. Learned counsel has emphasized that petitioner has no role whatsoever in the alleged transaction and that the prosecution has failed to attribute any specific (overt) act to the petitioner. Furthermore, the alleged recovery, if any, has not been effected from the petitioner and the petitioner has been implicated merely on the basis of presumptions. Learned counsel has further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are essentially based on documentary material(s) which are already in possession of the prosecution and, therefor