IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sandeep ….Petitioner versus State of Haryana ….Respondent Date of decision: March 18, 2026 Date of Uploading: March 18, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the petitioner.

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’) (earlier Section 438 of Cr. P.C.) seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.0236 dated 20.04.2026, under Sections 115, 190, 191(3), 333, 351(3), 308(4)

of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Kharkhoda, District Sonipat, Haryana.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he, along with the co-accused, formed an unlawful assembly and, in furtherance of their common object, arrived at the spot to extort money from the complainant. It is further alleged that they caused injuries to the complainant in the course of committing the extortion and also extended threats to kill him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are wholly concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has argued that there is no evidence of firing or demand of extortion. Learned counsel has further argued that, in fact, the dispute in hand is purely civil in nature and when the settlement could not happen, the complainant side fired 8 shots upon the petitioner side. Learned counsel has further submitted that the FIR in question was registered on 20.04.2026 at 13:32 hours, whereas the incident had occurred on 19.04.2026 between 19:00 and 19:15 hours, thus, there is unexplained delay in lodging the FIR in question.

3.1. Learned counsel has further contended that the police have not conducted a fair, proper and impartial investigation, and the inquiry conducted so far appears to be not only incomplete but also tainted with bias. Learned counsel has further submitted that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner, and therefore his custodial interrogation is not warranted. It has been further argued that custodial interrogation cannot be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when it is absolutely necessary for the purpose of effecting recovery or for eliciting material information relevant to the investigation. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and to cooperate with the investigating agency as and when required. In these circumstances, it is contended that no useful purpose would be served by subjecting the petitioner to arrest or by sending him behind bars. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner has been entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner in the FIR. Learned State counsel has further contended that the petitioner, along with his co-accused, after forming an unlawful assembly, gave injuries to the complainant side and demanded extortion money and extended threats to kill. It has further been argued that considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, there exists a reasonable apprehension that the petitioner, if granted the concession of anticipatory bail, may abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence. Learned State counsel has also submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the purpose of conducting an effective and fair investigation and for unearthing the entire chain of events pertaining to the alleged occurrence. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned State counsel has prayed that the