IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Manjeet ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Date of Decision: February 09, 2026 Date of Uploading: February 09, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Khushwant Saharan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

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.0143 dated 19.07.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 319(2) and 318(4) of the BNS Act, 2023, at Police Station Rohtak Civil Lines, District Rohtak.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that complainant, namely, Rahul Deswal, son of Jagdish Deswal, resident of House No.254/12, Gali No. 9, Tilak Nagar, Rohtak, submitted a complaint stating that he is in possession of a Grand i10 car bearing registration No.HR-12-AV-0591, which is registered in the name of his father, namely, Jagdish Deswal. His father is currently residing in Australia with his elder brother, Sandeep. He stated that a person named Manjeet (petitioner herein), who was employed as a driver on his Bolero vehicle bearing registration No.HR-63-E-4817, borrowed the Grand i10 car for a short duration on 09.02.2025. Despite repeated requests made by him to return the vehicle, Manjeet (petitioner herein) kept delaying its return by making excuses and sending messages on his mobile phone. He further alleged that he later came to know that Manjeet (petitioner herein), in conspiracy with officials of the Registration Authority, fraudulently transferred the ownership of the said vehicle in his own name and subsequently sold it to Spini Company, Karnal. 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, as a friendly loan, the petitioner had provided the complainant an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on 03.01.2025 and Rs.2,50,000/- on 22.01.2026 in cash, but when the petitioner asked the complainant to return him the aforesaid amount, the complainant showed his inability to do so. Learned counsel has iterated that, thereafter, the complainant offered the petitioner a car bearing registration No.HR-12-AV-0591 to be transferred in the name of the petitioner in lieu of the aforesaid amount, and the needful was accordingly, done. Learned counsel has further iterated that after sometime, the complainant threatened the petitioner to pay him some amount since, as per complainant, he had sold the aforesaid car to the petitioner for a lesser amount. Learned counsel argues that since the petitioner did not accede to his demand, the complainant entangled the petitioner into the FIR in question.

3.1. Learned counsel asserts that the police have not conducted a fair and impartial investigation and the inquiry conducted so far is not only incomplete but also tainted with bias. 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. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. Learned State counsel has iterated that the petitioner had, after preparing false documents for transferring the vehicle in question, which belongs to one Jagdish Deswal (father of the complainant) in his name by man