214 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on:11.02.2026 Karnail Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj Present: Mr. Sachin Jangra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, A.A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Ajay Sinha, Advocate for respondent no.2.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 483(3) of the BNSS, 2023, is for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent no.2 vide order dated 28.10.2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sonepat in a case FIR No.007 registered under Sections 112, 305(2), 317(2)(5) read with 3(5) BNS, at Police Station GRP Sonipat, District GRP Ambala Cantt., Haryana.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the FIR in question was registered on the complaint of the petitioner, namely, Karnail Ram in which it was alleged that on 24.02.2025 when he along with his daughter- in-law was travelling to Kurukshetra from Mumbai Central Railway Station, his bag containing jewellary, cash amount and some valuable documents were stolen from the train, to which he informed his son, who registered a complaint online. Thus, the FIR was registered and on registration of FIR investigation commenced. During investigation, complicity of respondent No.2 surfaced who was the main accused who received the stolen property of the petitioner from other co-accused. Apprehending arrest, respondent no.2 approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sonipat, for grant of concession of anticipatory bail, which has been allowed vide its order dated 28.10.2025. Hence, aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to respondent no.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the stolen jewellery is amounting to Rs.7.00 to 8.00 lacs. He submits that respondent No.2 is a member of a gang, who operates in commission of offences such like theft and snatching and after stealing the bag containing jewellary, cash amount and other valuable documents, the same has been sold to respondent No.2. He further submits that respondent No.2 along with co-accused, have committed the offence of theft. He submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sonipat had failed to appreciate the same that there was a mens rea on the part of respondent no.2 and, thus, has illegally granted anticipatory bail to respondent no.2 only on the ground that bail cannot be denied merely because disputed money has not been recovered and that he is ready to provide all necessary assistance/help for effecting recovery.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.2 has submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are completely false and frivolous. He submits that respondent No.2 is not even named in the FIR and he has been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, Karam Kumar, which is not even an admissible evidence. He further submits that nothing is to be recovered from respondent No.2 and thus, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sonipat, has rightly granted concession of anticipatory bail to him as he is ready to provide al the necessary assistance in effecting recovery of stolen articles.

5. However, learned State counsel has supported the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and prays for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to respondent no.2. He submits that the recovery is yet to be effected from respondent No.2. He further submits that respondent No.2, on earlier stages of investigation, did not cooperate and even after service of notice, he had not appeared before the investigation officer to join the investigation. He submits that the gang members used to sell jewellery and other stolen property