The court granted anticipatory bail based on the principle of parity, as the State could not distinguish the role of the petitioner from that of a co-accused who had already been granted the same relief.

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. On 7.5.2026, the following order was passed:

‘The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 ( Section 438 Cr.P.C.) for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case registered against him vide FIR No.0019 dated 08.08.2023 under Sections 120-B , 418, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC (corresponding Sections 61(2), 318(3), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of BNS, 2023) and Sections 13(2), 13(1) (c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station ACB Hisar, District State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Haryana. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that a co-accused, namely, Raj Kumar Bhardwaj has been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 27.04.2026 (Annexure P-6). Notice of motion. Mr. Viney Phogat, DAG, Haryana, present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Adjourned to 10.07.2026. In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to appear before the SHO/Investigating Officer to join investigation and in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of SHO/Investigating Agency, subject to the following conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) BNSS: (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court and shall surrender his passport, if any. Meanwhile, the State is directed to file an affidavit/reply as to the exact role of the petitioner and his co-accused alongwith the details of pending FIRs, if any, on or before the next date of hearing.’

2. Learned State counsel (on instructions from Inspector Fateh Singh) submits that pursuant to the order dated 7.5.2026, the petitioner has joined investigation but anticipatory bail ought not to be extended to the petitioner as he might influence witnesses. However, Learned State counsel is unable to point out difference between the role of the petitioner and co-accused Raj Kumar Bhardwaj, who has been extended the concession of anticipatory bail vide order dated 27.4.2026 passed in CRM-M No.6381 of 2026 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court.

3. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to confirm the interim order dated 7.5.2026. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. Interim order dated 7.5.2026, passed by this Court is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS.

4. This order should not be treated as “blanket” order. It will not be read granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence.

5. Liberty is reserved in favour of State/complainant to move for cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioner violates any condition stipulated under Section 482(2) of BNSS or upon showing any other sufficient cause.

6. Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.