IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Hakam Khan ……Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Haryana ……Respondent(s)

Decided on : 21.01.2026 Date of uploading: 22 01.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Ms. Rosi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG, Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed 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.242 dated 17.04.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Section 34, 379-A IPC (Section 379-B added later on and Section 379-A deleted later on), at Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question reveals that the present case was registered the present case was registered on 17.04.2024 on the basis of a complaint made by the complainant, Jasmer Singh, wherein it was alleged that on 15.04.2024 he had purchased a trolla bearing registration No. HR-84-4155 from one Anup son of Kamal Singh. It was further alleged that on 17.04.2024, at about 02:00 a.m., when he reached near the Samalkha Gera weighing scale while driving the said trolla, a blue coloured Baleno car bearing registration No. HR-26ET-0779 stopped near his trolla. Three youths alighted from the said vehicle, forcibly stopped the trolla, made the complainant alight, assaulted him and snatched away the trolla. It was further alleged that one of the assailants called an accomplice by the name of “Rizwan” to drive the trolla, who then drove away the same. Upon these set of allegations, the present FIR has been registered against the accused persons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has further been contended that the petitioner has been nominated in the FIR in question by co-accused in the disclosure statement. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further argued that one co- accused namely has already been granted the concession of bail by the trial Court. Learned counsel asserts that the in the instant case, the FIR fails to include material facts, which further raised questions about its credibility and fairness. Moreover, the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be granted the concession of the anticipatory bail.

4. Learned State Counsel has filed reply by way of affidavit of ASI Dinesh Kumar in Court today, which is taken on record. He has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by raising arguments in tandem with the said reply, relevant whereof reads thus:

“ 3. That the petitioner has been found to be involved in eight other FIRs as per the records verified by the concerned police official on the ICJS Portal and records of the Police Station Samalkha, Panipat, which are as under-

(i) FIR No. 171 dated 05/05/2015 u/s 379, 411 of IPC, P.S Sadar Tauru, Nuh. The petitioner was declared as proclaimed person vide order dated 02/07/2019 passed by Ld. A.C.J.M, Mewat.

(ii) FIR No. 165 dated 04/04/2017 u/s 379 of IPC, P.S Sector-31, Faridabad. The petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person vide order dated 10/12/2025.

(iii) FIR No. 130 dated 15/03/2017 u/s 379 of IPC, P.S Surajkund, Faridabad. The petitioner has been declared proclaimed person vide order dated 30/11/2024.

(iv) FIR No. 114 dated 27/03/2017 u/s 379 of IPC, P.S SGN Nagar, Faridabad. The petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person in this case vide order dated 30/04/2019.

(v) FIR No. 125 dated 22.07.2022 u/s 379, 34 of IP