IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH Jitender ….Petitioner versus State of Haryana ….Respondent Date of Decision: April 01, 2026 Date of Uploading: April 01, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Harmandeep S. Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Suneel Ranga, DAG Haryana and Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) (Section 438 of Cr. P.C.) seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.0070 dated 11.03.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Section 303 of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Israna, District Panipat.

2. The gravamen of the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with Sarpanch of village concerned had illegally cut Shisham and Kikar trees on the Panchayat land.

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 iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is a contractor by profession and had participated in an open auction conducted by the Gram Panchayat regarding cutting and removal of trees situated on the concerned Panchayat land. Upon declaring successful bidder, the petitioner had started cutting and removing trees, as per terms and conditions of the auction and counter of trees, as per letter dated 08.01.2026 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Panipat. Learned counsel has argued that there was no dishonest intention or criminal motive on the part of the petitioner in cutting excess trees, and that, if any such situation arises, the petitioner is ready and willing to compensate for the said loss. Learned counsel has argued that even, the case in hand is based on documentary evidence, which is already in possession of the concerned authorities.

3.1. Learned counsel has further asserted that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. 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. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4. On the other hand, 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 permission was granted only to fell Safeda (Eucalyptus) tree, however, the petitioner and concerned Sarpanch, in collusion with the official(s) of Forest Department as well as Panchayati Raj Development Department, had caused felling of Shisham and Kikar trees as well. In case, the petitioner is granted concession of anticipatory bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice as also interfere/ intimidate the prosecution evidence/ witnesses. On these submissions, dismissal of the present petition is entreated for.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.

6. As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. As per the prosecution case and upon perusal of the impugned order, it is borne out that permission was granted strictly and exclusively for the felling of Safeda (Eucalyptus) trees; however, the petitioner, in active connivance with the concerned Sarpanch and in collusion with officials of the Forest Department as well as the Panchayati Raj Development Department, deliberately exceeded the scope of such permission and caused the unlawful felling of valuable Shisham and Kikar trees. The acts attributed to the petitioner disclose not only a clear violation of the conditi