112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 07.04.2026 Harpreet Singh ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Manvinder Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. AG, Haryana.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case FIR No.56 dated 22.02.2026, registered under Sections 309(6) of BNS, 2023, at Police Station Kalan Wali, Police District Dabwali, District Sirsa.

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that the FIR in the present case was registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Ranjeet Singh. It was alleged that on 13.02.2026, he took Rs.30,000/- from Maninder Singh and went to the Shivratri fair in village Jagmalwali. People were playing cards in the fields. One Shambhu, whom he already knew was standing there. They suspected that the complainant might file a complaint, but Shambu pacified them. In evening at about 07:30 p.m., when the complainant was going on his motorcycle, Honey Singh and another boy who was with him started riding alongside him on their motorcycle. When they reached Taruana Trilokewala, a boy came behind on his motorcycle and collided with the complainant’s motorcycle. Honey Singh and another boy also stopped their motorcycle and started beating him and snatched his bag which contained Rs.30,000/-, documents, purse and his phone and fled away on their motorcycles. He was shifted to the hospital. Thus, request was made to take legal action against the accused persons. On the registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. During the investigation, complicity of the petitioner was surfaced and he was also arrayed as an accused. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa praying for grant of anticipatory bail. However, after hearing both the sides, learned Court finding no merit in the same, dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 30.03.2026. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for grant of anticipatory bail by way of filing the present petition.

3. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in the present case. He submits that neither the petitioner has been named in the FIR nor any role has been attributed to him. He contends that the petitioner was never identified by the complainant either by name or by face. However, he has been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused, which is not even an admissible evidence. He further contends that there is an unexplained delay of nine days in lodging the FIR, as the occurrence took place on 13.02.2026, whereas, the FIR was registered on 22.02.2026. He has contended that in the FIR, three persons were mentioned by the complainant, however, five persons have been arrested in this case, thus, false implication of the petitioner in the present case is writ large. He contends that in the fact and circumstances of the present case, no case as alleged against the petitioner is made out and thus, he deserves to be granted anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that in a well planned conspiracy hatched by the petitioner alongwith the co-accused, he committed robbery of Rs.30,000/-, documents, mobile phone on the complainant and also gave beatings to him. He submits that during the investigation, complicity of the petitioner surfaced. He submits that the investigation is at the initial stage and to recover the looted money, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. He, thus, submits that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court