212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Peetam Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Date of Decision: January 21, 2026 Date of Uploading: January 22, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate and Mr. Avijit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Priyanka Sadar Thakur, Senior DAG Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

The present petition is the second attempt under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.404 dated 03.10.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 125 and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’), Section 15(2) of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 and Sections 18(C), 18(A) and 18(B) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, at Police Station Sector 8, District Faridabad.

The earlier petition for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 27.11.2025 by this Court, relevant whereof reads thus:

“Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.404 dated 03.10.2025, registered under Sections 125 & 318(4) of the BNS, 2023, Section 15(2) of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 and Sections 18(C), 18(A) & 18(B) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, at Police Station Sector 8, District Faridabad.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for sometime, seeks to withdraw the petition in hand with liberty to file afresh after giving complete/ better particulars.

3. Ordered accordingly.

4. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”

Thereafter, the present petition i.e. the second petition for grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail has been preferred by the petitioner on and around 28.11.2025.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that on 03.10.2025, Dr. Vijay, ASMO, B.K. Hospital, Faridabad, pursuant to Letter No.FW/ 2025/ 735/ 736/ 737 dated 03.10.2025 issued by the CMO, Faridabad, along with Dr. Tarun, Dentist, Sector-3, Faridabad, Shri Parveen Rathee, Drug Control Officer, and Shri Satbir Rawal, Naib Tehsildar, Gonchhi, acting as the Duty Magistrate, sought police assistance for conducting a raid at the shop of a quack operating from the house of Sehdev, son of Udaiveer, resident of Village Sihi, Sector-8, Faridabad. Thereafter, in the presence of police officials, the aforesaid team conducted the raid, during which certain prescriptions, medicines, and other articles were recovered and taken into police possession vide separate recovery memos. As per prosecution case, information had been received that a person was illegally practicing medicine at the said shop without possessing any valid medical degree or authorization. However, at the time of the raid, no doctor was found present at the shop. As per the statement of the house owner, namely, Sehdev, Dr. Preetam Singh (petitioner herein) was practicing at the shop situated in his house. Based on these set of allegations, the instant FIR was duly registered and investigation ensued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further iterated that neither, the petitioner was present at the sport nor has any concern with the alleged offence. Learned counsel has also iterated that the petitioner is merely a tenant in the shop in question and has no ownership, control, access or connection with the said shop from where the alleged recovery has been made, and, in fact, the owner of the house, in which, the aforesaid shop is situated, is one Sehdev and he is running the said shop under name and style of Fynelife Pharma. Learned counsel has argued that, in fact, said landlord has some dispute with