IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-58713-2025 Date of Decision: 17.10.2025 JAMSHED ......... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ….... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Sarfaraj Anjum Mor, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, DAG, Haryana assisted by ASI Mahesh Kumar.

****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.187, dated 07.07.2025, registered at Police Station SGM Nagar, District Faridabad (Annexure P-1), under Sections 303(2) and 305(e) read with Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023.

2. Notice of motion.

3. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Both the parties have been heard and material on file has been perused.

4. The present case was registered on the basis of statement given to the police by Executive Engineer to Municipal Corporation, Faridabad regarding theft of 584 DI pipes out of 1184 DI pipes kept at the site. During investigation, two persons namely Sahun and Sakir @ Jagga were arrested and 44 stolen DI pipes were recovered from their possession alongwith vehicle used in committing the theft. Thereafter, co-accused Kadri @ Kaddu, Sajid @ Kaptan, Sehjad @ Channi and Mohd. Hussain were also arrested and the apprehended accused suffered disclosure statements that accused Jamshed-petitioner was also with them at the time of theft. Apprehending arrest, petitioner applied for anticipatory bail which has been dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner has been named by the co-accused due to previous enmity with them. He has no concern with the theft in question and he is not involved in the present case. The disclosure statement suffered by the co-accused are not admissible in evidence and cannot be used against him. Nothing is to be recovered from his possession. He is ready to join the investigation and to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the Court and concession of anticipatory bail be extended in his favour.

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the bail and argued that petitioner has committed a heinous offence and the stolen pipes are yet to be recovered and co-accused has specifically named petitioner as their accomplice. As such custodial interrogation of the accused is essential and rather grant of ad-interim bail will hamper the investigation. Learned State counsel next contended that the application in hand be dismissed.

7. It is well settled that the power to grant anticipatory bail is of extra-ordinary nature and is to be sparingly used with circumspection. This court is fortified by the observations made in case of 2022 (4) RCR (Criminal) 968 titled as "Sachin @ Sachin Ahuja Vs. State of Punjab". In SLP (Crl.) 7940 2023 titled as "Shri Kant Upadhay Vs. State of Bihar", Hon'ble Apex Court has held that grant of interim protection or protection from arrest to an accused in a serious case may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or destruction of evidence. The court is cognizant of the fact that power of anticipatory bail is to be exercised in exceptional circumstances as it may cause some hindrance to normal flow of investigation which would undermine the case of the prosecution.

8. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature 584 DI pipes belonging the complainant have been stolen from the site where the work was going on. Petitioner has been named as an accomplice by the co- accused who have been arrested by the police from whom some of the pipes have also been recovered. As such, remaining pipes are yet to be recovered for which custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential. In case, petitioner is interrogated under the protective umbrella of the order of interim anticipatory bail in his favour, he will not answer the questions in t