IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.50575 of 2025 Date of decision: 23.02.2026 Anil Kumar .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***

Present :- Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Surender Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.

***

RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J .

1. Prayer in the present petition is for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 in case bearing FIR No.109, dated 30.08.2024, under Sections 109(1), 126, 351(2), 3(5), 61 of BNS and Sections 25, 54 & 59 of Arms Act, 1957, registered at Police Station Moohana, District Sonipat vide order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat. Further prayer has been made for setting aside the impugned order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat whereby the application dated 19.05.2025 filed by the police officials for cancellation of bail of respondent No.2 was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner before this Court is the complainant at whose behest the abovesaid FIR was registered against respondent No.2. He has submitted that respondent No.2 was specifically named in the FIR and there are allegations against him that the complainant was attacked at the behest of respondent No.2 and suffered firm arm injuries. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat vide order dated 09.05.2025 had allowed the anticipatory bail application of respondent No.2, which is totally against the evidence on record. He has submitted that the State has also filed an application for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2, howevre the same was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat vide order dated 02.06.2025. He has further submitted that respondent No.2 is a police official, who is in a position to influence the investigation. He has submitted that keeping in view the nature of allegations and the gravity of the offence committed, the impugned order granting anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 deserves to be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the case is still under investigation and respondent No.2 is required for the investigation, however he has been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat vide order dated 09.05.2025 and the application filed by the State for cancellation of his bail was also dismissed vide order dated 02.06.2025. He has submitted that the State has also filed an application for conducting the polygraph test of respondent No.2 before the learned trial Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 29.04.2025 with the observation that respondent No.2 do not want to undergo the said polygraphy test. Thereafter, call details record of respondent No.2 were obtained which revealed that respondent No.2 was present in Court complex on 23.08.2024 from 9:50 A.M. to 11:13 A.M, however, he had stated false fact while joining investigation that he had not visited Sonipat. He thus, prays for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat.

4. This Court has heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is deciphered that respondent No.2 was granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat vide order dated 09.05.2025 and in furtherance of the same, he duly joined the investigation. Perusal of the record would show that there was enmity between the parties on account of election of Sarpanch in the village, which was later on led to commission of murder of brother of respondent No.2 by Sonu and Anil and in the said incident, friend of his brother, Narender, namely, Davinder also suffered bullet injuries and he was the complainant