IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.218 CRM-M-14403-2026 Decided on : 07.04.2026 Saddam ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL ***

Present : Mr. Zeeshan Khan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, Senior 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.109 dated 04.04.2023, registered under Sections 420 and 407 IPC, at Police Station Dharuhera, District Rewari.

2. Brief facts, as per the prosecution case, are that the petitioner alongwith co-accused committed theft of goods from the truck bearing registration No.RJ-32GC-3204. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and he has no concern with the said incident. It has also been contended that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused Sarafat @ Mukka who has already been granted the concession of regular bail by the learned trial Court vide order dated 23.09.2024. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. Therefore, it is urged that the instant petition deserves to be allowed.

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 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari vide order dated 11.08.2025.

5. Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, Senior DAG, Haryana has appeared and filed the status report. The same is taken on record. He has vehemently opposed the instant petition by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. He further contends that co- accused Sarafat had intimated the petitioner with regard to the entrustment of the vehicle and the petitioner alongwith co-accused reached the place where the material was off loaded and thereafter, the seals were changed. Thus, the petitioner had been found actively participating in the commission of the crime. He further submits that apart from the disclosure statement there are CDRs connecting the petitioner with the co-accused. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the instant petition

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record, it is evident that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He alongwith co-accused committed theft of goods from the truck. Apart from the disclosure statement there are CDRs between the petitioner and the co-accused connecting him with the co- accused. The investigation so far points towards deeper probe for which custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. This Court is sanguine of the fact that while considering the petition for anticipatory bail, it 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 allegations, at this preliminary stage, would not be justified as it may affect the course of fair investigation and undermine and seriousness of the alleged act. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation in the matter.

7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting s