IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 09.03.2026 Mukul …Petitioner.

Versus The State of Haryana …Respondent.

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY.

Present: Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Shweta Nahata, DAG, Haryana.

****

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral)

1. Petitioner, who is an accused in case FIR No. 40 dated 08.02.2026, registered against him under Sections 303, 317(2) of BNS and Sections 32, 33, 51 of Indian Forest Act and Sections 27, 29, 39(D), 50, 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1927, at Police Station Naraingarh, District Ambala, has filed the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail.

2. Relevant facts as emerging from the documents on record be noticed hereinbelow:-

Anil Kumar, Forest Inspector, Incharge, Kurali, set the criminal law in motion by filing a complaint pointing therein that at about 2 in the morning of 7.2.2026, he received an information that few ‘Khair’ trees had been cut illegally from the forest land, in the area of village Kurali. Immediately thereafter, an information was sent to senior officers and he (c) headed for the spot. Naka was laid. The team noticed a tempo (make Ashoka Leyland) bearing registration No. HR-58B-2282 parked in the middle of the road. The vehicle was loaded with Khair Wood. A person was seen standing nearby on a motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-04H- 4153, who introduced himself as Mukul (present petitioner), son of Anand Kumar, resident of Village Darpur, Police Station Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar. The team noticed that the said Mukul was warning his other accomplices to run away and was addressing them as Rohit, Usman, Shahzad, Abdul Sattar etc. He was apprehended and was brought to Range Office, Naraingarh. While the officials were busy in preparing the documents, taking undue advantage of the commotion, aforesaid Mukul sped away after pushing the forest guard. Primarily with this backdrop, complainant requested the police authorities to catch hold of all those, who were involved in the illegal cutting of the trees from the forest land, as also to initiate appropriate proceedings against them. Complainant also pointed out that due to illegal acts of all the accused, Forest Department has suffered loss of Rs.7,80,000/-. On the basis of the said complaint, a formal case vide FIR No. 40 dated 08.02.2026, was registered u/s 303, 317(2) of BNS and Sections 32, 33, 51 of Indian Forest Act and Sections 27, 29, 39(D), 50, 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1927, at Police Station Naraingarh, District Ambala.

Apprehending his arrest, petitioner moved an application for grant of pre-arrest bail. The said application was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Ambala vide order dated 20.2.2026. Aggrieved of which, the present petition has been filed for grant of bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner with no criminal antecedents, has been falsely implicated in the present case. No recovery of trees/wood was effected from him, it being also not case of the prosecution that they had seen petitioner cutting the trees from the forest land. Further, the falsity of the case set up against the petitioner is also apparent from the fact that none of the vehicles mentioned in the FIR are registered in the name of petitioner. Recovery having already been effected, the custodial interrogation of petitioner is not needed, but being a law abiding citizen, he is willing to join the investigation as and when called for by the IO.

4. Per contra, while opposing the request for grant of pre-arrest bail, learned State counsel during her brief submissions, contends that after receiving information that trees had been cut illegally from the forest land, complainant, an officer in the Forest Department acted promptly and reached at the site along with the team. Barricades were set up on the road. The team noticed a tempo (make Ashoka Leyland) bearing registration No. HR- 58B-2282 parked in the middle of the roa