Anticipatory bail may be granted where the petitioner shows willingness to cooperate with the investigation and lacks direct involvement in the substantive underlying offences, subject to compliance with statutory conditions.

RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI, J. (Oral)

CRM-24189-2026

1. Application is allowed as prayed for.

CRM-24190-2026

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that an FIR No.384 dated 14.08.2019 under Section 306 and 34 of Indian Penal Code stands registered against the petitioner at Police Station Sector 31, Faridabad but the said fact could not be inadvertently mentioned in the petition. He also states that the pendency of the said FIR against the petitioner has no bearing on decision of the present petition as the petitioner is on bail in the said FIR. He accordingly states that he may be permitted to withdraw the CRM in question as no amendment in a petition filed on criminal side is permitted in law.

3. In view of his such statement, CRM is dismissed as withdrawn.

CRM-M-28600-2026

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that son Javed of the petitioner who was employed as a Patwari in District Faridabad was falsely implicated in a corruption case under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on 29.04.2026 registered at Police Station State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Faridabad; that allegations against the petitioner are that on 30.04.2026, he and his co-villagers went to the complainant and made efforts for amicable settlement; that prosecution also alleges that in an effort for getting the said settlement arrived at, the petitioner executed an affidavit of that date mentioning that if the complainant Rajpal gives statement in favour of son of the petitioner in the said criminal case and his son is ultimately acquitted, the petitioner will not initiate any legal proceedings against the said complainant; that prosecution then alleges that the complainant, on an application made by the prosecution, appeared before the concerned Magistrate and got his statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, on the basis of which, the petitioner has been arrayed as accused in the FIR in question by invoking Section 232 of BNS read with Section 3(5) thereof; that so far as alleged corruption allegations are concerned, the petitioner is connected nowhere to the same; that although one more case arising out of an FIR No.384 dated 14.08.2019 under Sections 306 & 34 IPC stands registered against the petitioner, yet, he is on bail in the said case; that the petitioner is aged 63 years and is ready to join investigation and also to cooperate with the investigating agency on all material counts.

5. Mr. Vishal Kashyap, Sr.DAG, Haryana has filed a status report. He has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He basically argues that since the petitioner swore in the affidavit Annexure R-II, an offence under Section 232 read with Section 3(5) of BNS is clearly made out against the petitioner. However, he fairly concedes that so far as allegations constituting offences under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act are concerned, the petitioner is nowhere in the picture.

6. Be that as it may, without commenting anything upon merits of the FIR/case in question but considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and in the totality of the facts/circumstances of the present case, especially when nothing has been attributed against the petitioner in respect of the offences attracting the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is ordered that the petitioner will join investigation with the concerned investigating officer within seven days from today. It is also ordered that in the event of his arrest in the FIR in question, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of such officer. However, on such bail, he shall comply with the term/s and condition/s contained in Section 480(3) and 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Su