IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 06.02.2026 Vikas ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. D.S. Matya, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana.

*****

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.76 dated 29.03.2024 registered under Sections 34 and 407 of the IPC, at Police Station Furrukh Nagar, District Gurugram.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner along with other co-accused misappropriated goods of the complainant.

Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the alleged crime. He argued that the petitioner is a driver by profession, working for the complainant and on 09.03.2024, the petitioner and another driver-Asjdulla took the complainant’s vehicle from the Amazon company to Bombay. However, in the middle of the journey, he received a message regarding the critical condition of his mother. Consequently, he handed over the vehicle to Ajsdulla after informing the vehicle’s owner and left for his village. He further argued that the entire case is based on hearsay statement of the complainant who got the FIR in question registered after an unexplained delay of 18 days from the alleged incident, casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. He submitted that the petitioner was named in the FIR only on the basis of suspicion and that too without any concrete evidence. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

4. After registration of the FIR, investigation has been initiated and is under way. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, vide order dated

26.06.2024.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has already filed the status report in the matter and while referring to the same, she has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. She argued that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR. She further argued that it was the petitioner who along with other co-accused Asjadullah (other driver), hatched criminal conspiracy and misappropriated goods of complainant during transit. She further argued that the petitioner played a pivotal role, abandoning the vehicle by dishonestly disposing of the entrusted property of the complainant and absconding from the scene of crime. She further submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for fair and proper investigation in the matter and to recover the remaining mobile phones and other electronic items. Hence, she prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. Heard.

7. In the present case, the petitioner was specifically named in the FIR and the allegations against him are serious in nature. He is alleged to be the main conspirator in the crime of misappropriation of goods entrusted to the complainant’s vehicle for safe transportation. Remaining mobile phones and electronic items are yet to be recovered. The investigation so far points towards requirement of a deeper probe for which the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. While considering a plea for anticipatory bail, this Court is required to consider the overall nature of offence and accusation against the accused, the manner of occurrence, the gravity of offence and the potential impact of granting pre-arrest protection, at this stage. Granting anticipatory bail with such allegat