IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Vijay Kumar ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana and another ....Respondents Date of decision: 29.01.2026 Date of Uploading : 29.01.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Jamshed Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mrs. Mahima Yashpal, Senior DAG Haryana.

Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate for respondent No.2.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and Section 483(2) read with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 vide order 20.07.2023 and 20.09.2023 passed by this Court in FIR No.88 dated 16.05.2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 457, 384, 467, 419, 471, 201, 120-B, 341, 389 and 34 of IPC at Police Station Nagina, District Nuh (Mewat).

2. Briefly stated, the FIR in question was registered on the basis of complaint moved by the petitioner alleging therein that on 29.03.2023, three persons came to his house in a Tata Harrier car bearing registration No. CH-01-CJ-7254 and posed as officers of the Enforcement Directorate. Thereafter, they threatened him with false implication in a tax case. It was ₹

further alleged that the accused demanded a sum of 5,00,000/-, out of ₹

which 2,50,000/- was paid by the complainant. However, on subsequent verification from the Enforcement Directorate, it was revealed that no such raid was conducted and the accused were impersonating as ED officials which led to registration of the FIR in question. During the course of investigation, co-accused Inzamam-ul-Haq @ Inzu was arrested and recoveries were effected.

3. Vide order dated 20.07.2023 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court, the respondent No.2 was granted the concession of interim anticipatory bail and the same was confirmed vide order dated 20.09.2023.

The relevant of the said order reads thus:

“8. The factum of joining investigation by the petitioner in pursuance of the order passed by this Court is not disputed by learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant. So far as the point of recovery of Rs. 2,50,000/- is concerned, there is no material to indicate that complainant was having ash amount of Rs.2,50,000/- or that any money was paid to the petitioner.

9. Be that as it may, all these allegations are to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution before learned trial Court, after leading evidence.

10. In view of above, interim order dated 20.07.2023 is made absolute, subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2)

Cr.P.C.

11. It is also made clear that petitioner shall fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer as and when called for further investigation in the matter.

12. The above observations may not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case; rather confined only to decide the present bail matter.

13. Disposed off accordingly.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 (herein) deserves to be cancelled as he has grossly misused the concession of bail. Learned counsel has further iterated that immediately after obtaining the concession of anticipatory bail, respondent No.2 started pressuring and intimidating the petitioner to withdraw the FIR and to make statements in his favour which is clear violation of the conditions imposed under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Learned counsel has further submitted that respondent No.2 alongwith 4-5 associates came to the workplace of the petitioner abused him and extended threats to withdraw the case. According to learned counsel, despite lodging complaints with the local police as well as higher police authorities, no effective action has been taken. Learned counsel has emphasized that the offence in question is grave and serious in nature involving impersonation of public officials, extortion and forgery and that the continued protection to respondent No.2 would seriou