SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 79917

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
GAGANDEEP SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA – Respondent
CRM-M_23221_2026



##PAGE1##

CRM-M-23221-2026 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

(213) CRM-M-23221-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision : 18.05.2026

GAGANDEEP SINGH ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present: Mr. Robin Singh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana

****

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section

482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking

grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.074 dated 27.03.2024

registered under Section 379 of IPC (Sections 411 and 34 of IPC added later on)

at Police Station Farrukh Nagar, Gurugram.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written

complaint submitted by the complainant Bijender Kumar, alleging that his

vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-32-GB-7448 was parked by his driver Tejpal

on 24.03.2024 in front of Global Infratech Company, but the same was found

missing on 26.03.2024. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings had

been initiated. Since no clue about the culprit could be found, an untraceable

report was prepared on 28.04.2024. Subsequently, the accused Sahju, Rashid,

Shakir and Rashid, who were apprehended in another case bearing FIR No.111

AMIT SHARMA

2026.05.19 10:05

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/judgment.

##PAGE2##

CRM-M-23221-2026 (O&M) 2

dated 05.05.2024 registered at Police Station Farrukhnagar, District Gurugram

suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in this case and on

the basis of the same, they were nominated as accused and were arrested in this

case as well. On the basis of their disclosure statement, accused Altaf and

Saddam were nominated as additional accused and were arrested. Accused

Altaf suffered a disclosure statement on the basis of which offence under

Section 411 of IPC was added and Khubi @ Rahul was nominated as an

accused. During the course of investigation, accused Kamar Hashmi was

arrested. He too suffered a disclosure statement to the effect that he had sold the

stolen vehicle to the present petitioner. The petitioner was nominated as such.

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of

anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of Learned Sessions

Judge, Gurugram vide order dated 21.04.2026.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been

falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused

Kamar Hashmi which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence.

He is a scrap dealer by profession and used to receive parts of vehicles as scrap.

A part of vehicle bearing Chassis No.MAT704251H3H18822 is alleged to have

been purchased by him, whereas in fact the Chassis No. of the stolen vehicle as

per the Registration Certificate is No.MAT704251H3E11533. No recovery is to

be effected from him. He is ready to join investigation. His custodial

interrogation is not required. His antecedents are clean. It is, therefore, argued

that the petition deserves to be allowed.

AMIT SHARMA

2026.05.19 10:05

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/judgment.

##PAGE3##

CRM-M-23221-2026 (O&M) 3

4. Learned State counsel on the other hand, has argued that the

allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. For the purpose of

effecting recovery of the stolen vehicle, his custodial interrogation is must. It is,

therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties at considerable length.

6. The petitioner who is a scrap dealer is alleged to have purchased

the stolen vehicle from the accused Kamar Hashmi in April, 2024. Though, the

petitioner has submitted that he had not purchased the stolen vehicle and has

sought to be implicated on account of purchase of a vehicle bearing Chassis No.

MAT704251H3H18822, whereas the Chassis No. of the stolen vehicle is

No.MAT70425

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top