Jindal and Anr v. State of Haryana

IN Jindal and

State of H

Date of d Date of U

CORAM Present:

SUMEET

¶1Nagarik S for grant o No.13 da Sections 4 & 13(2) o

¶2had joined the stren competen Divisiona transfer o which the Engineer, THE HIGH COURT OF PUN CHANDIG

d another

V/s Haryana

decision: 26.08.2026 Uploading : 26.08.2026 M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Mr. Rahul Verma, Advocate Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, ***** T GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been file Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereina of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to ated 11.01.2023, registered fo 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IP of PC Act, at Police Station Hans The gravamen of the prosec d duties as Assistant Linemen (A gth of fake/forged transfer o nt authorities. The original co al Officer, DHBVN, Sub Urban rders submitted by Amit Kumar ey joined as ALM, had not been DHBVN, Hisar. During the in

NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH

CRM-M-40668-2026

....Petitioners

....Respondent SUMEET GOEL for the petitioners. , Senior DAG Haryana. ed under Section 482 of Bharat after to be referred as 'the BNS the petitioners in case bearing F r the offences punishable und PC and under Sections 7, 13(1)( si City, Hansi, District Hansi. cution case is that certain perso ALM) (out-source) in DHBVN orders purportedly issued by omplaint was made by the S n Hansi, after it was noticed t r and Sumit Kumar, on the basis n issued by the office of the Ch nquiry, it surfaced that the forg

iya S') FIR der

(A) ons on Sub that s of hief

orders we the benef Munish K obtained a

matter is prosecutio fabricated and with been join The prose involving official re

¶3question. named in of investi against th of co-accu and cann emphasize attribute ingredient ere sent to the concerned office t ficiaries had allegedly joined th Kumar, who was working a tion further revealed that severa appointments through similar for The material collected durin not confined to one or two on, several persons allegedly got d transfer orders resulting in w hdrawal of amounts from tion further disclosed that as m ed on different posts on the ba ecution has, therefore, expected t private beneficiaries as well ecords and functioning of DHBV Learned counsel for the p rs are innocent and have been Learned counsel has further i the original FIR and their name igation. It has been further con he petitioners is substantially ba used Munish Kumar which, by not be treated as substantive ed that the allegations in the FI any specific overt act to the ts of the offences alleged. It ha

through the official e-mail and t he department in connivance w as a Data Entry Operator. T al other persons had also alleged rged transfer orders. ng investigation indicates that o forged documents. As per t appointed on different posts usi wrongful entry into the departm the Government treasury. T many as 14 persons had alleged asis of such forged transfer orde the matter to be a larger conspira as persons having access to VN.

petitioners has iterated that falsely implicated into the FIR iterated that petitioner(s) were n es surfaced only during the cou ntended that the prosecution ca ased upon the disclosure statem itself, is inadmissible in eviden evidence. Learned counsel h IR are vague, omnibus and do n e petitioners so as to attract as been further contended that

hat with The dly ing ent The dly ers. acy R in not urse ase ent nce has

already be to be effe residents; undertake Learned behind th anticipato

¶4anticipato material c has iterate active inv Learned S had disclo appointme herein) in revealed interrogat network, material a contended hamper th tion qua the main accused has su een presented against several ac ect from the petitioners. Furtherm have clean antecedents; are r e not to influence any witness counsel has asserted that the tion and hence no useful purpose he bars. On strength of afor ory bail is entreated for. In oppugnation, learned Stat ory bail to the petitioners by argu rs are grave in nature and their i collected during the course of in ed that the investigation conduc volvement of the petitioners in State counsel has pointed out th osed that by editing forged tran ent of his relative Jindal and n DHBVN. It has been further co a larger conspiracy involving s tion of the petitioners is nec ascertain the role of other perso and trace the alleged monetary d that the grant of anticipatory b he ongoing investigation. Accor

ubstantially progressed, challan h ccused and no recovery is requir more, the petitioners are perman ready to join the investigation s(s) or tamper with the eviden petitioners are ready to join e would be served by sending th resaid submissions, the grant te counsel has opposed the grant uing that the allegations against involvement has surfaced from nvestigation. Learned State coun cted so far has clearly revealed n the commission of the offen hat co-accused –– Munish Kum nsfer orders he had facilitated his brother Mandeep (petition ontended that the investigation h several beneficiaries and custod cessary to identify the compl ons involved, recover incriminati y transactions. It has further be bail, at this stage, would seriou rdingly, a prayer has been made

has red ent & nce. em of t of nsel nce. mar ners has dial lete ing een usly

the dism

¶5gone throu

¶6Hon'ble S Punjab, 2 missal of the instant petition tion into the alleged offence. I have heard the learned cou ugh the available record of the c It would be apposite to re Supreme Court titled as Devinde 2025 INSC 320, relevant whereo "21. The parameters for grant like corruption are required to granted only in exceptional circu of the view that the applicant has allegations are politically motivat hand is concerned, it cannot be s have been made out by the petit bail and there is no frivolity in the

¶22In the aforesaid context, Central Bureau of Investigation 7 Scale 15, wherein this Court exp "28. While granting bail, of accusation, the natur severity of the punishm character of the accused, accused, reasonable poss accused at the trial, rea being tampered with, the other similar consideratio the purpose of granting b "reasonable grounds for which means the Court d satisfy it as to whether the and that the prosecution evidence in support of the to have the evidence estab reasonable doubt."

¶23The presumption of inn consideration for grant of an

in order to facilitate effect unsel for the rival parties and ha case. efer herein to a judgment of er Kumar Bansal vs. The State of reads as under: of anticipatory bail in a serious offe be satisfied. Anticipatory bail can mstances where the Court is prima fa been falsely enroped in the crime or ted or are frivolous. So far as the case said that any exceptional circumstan tioner accused for grant of anticipat e prosecution. we may refer to a pronouncement v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy reported in (20 pressed thus: the court has to keep in mind the nat re of evidence in support thereof, ment which conviction will entail, circumstances which are peculiar to sibility of securing the presence of asonable apprehension of the witnes larger interests of the public/State a ons. It has also to be kept in mind that bail, the Legislature has used the wo r believing" instead of "the eviden dealing with the grant of bail can o ere is a genuine case against the accu n will be able to produce prima fa e charge. It is not expected, at this sta blishing the guilt of the accused beyo ocence, by itself, cannot be the s nticipatory bail. The presumption

ive ave e of ence be acie e at nces tory t in 013) ture sses and t for ords nce" only used acie age, ond sole

¶7serious al perusal o Munish K innocence is one of the consider mind while considering the plea f to balance the cause of the accus solicitous homage to the accuse cause of public justice.

¶24If liberty is to be denied society, then the courts should no overwhelming considerations in anticipatory bail, it has to be den say that once the investigation is may consider to grant regular indulging in corruption.

¶25Avarice is a common fra famous pronouncement that all m unsavoury cynicism that it sugges as more than two centuries ago, people generally corrupt, liberty Romain Rolland lamented that F without indignation. Corruption Corruption, a word of wide conn spheres of our day to day life, al allowing decisions and actions wrongs of a case but by the prosp considerations.

¶26If even a fraction of what of corruption to be true, then it w that it is the rampant corruptio placed persons that has led to ec asked to name one sole factor tha society to prosperity, undeniably developing country faces a mena hired assassins to its law and ord at the higher echelons of the Gove As per the case put forth in llegations have been levelled of the FIR and the material av Kumar was working in DHBV

rations, which the court should keep for anticipatory bail. The salutary rul sed and the cause of public justice. O ed's liberty can, sometimes, defeat to an accused to ensure corruption f ot hesitate in denying such liberty. Wh the nature aforesaid require denial nied. It is altogether a different thing over and charge-sheet is filed, the co bail to a public servant - accused ailty of mankind and Robert Walpo men have their price, notwithstanding sts, is not very far from truth. As far b it was Burke who cautioned: "Amon cannot last long". In more recent yea France fell because there was corrupt has, in it, very dangerous potentialit notation has, in respect of almost all ll the world over, the limited meaning to be influenced not by the rights spects of monetary gains or other self was the vox pupuli about the magnit would not be far removed from the tru on indulged in with impunity by hig conomic unrest in this country. If on at effectively arrested the progress of ly it is corruption. If the society in ace greater than even the one from der, then that is from the corrupt eleme ernment and of the political parties." n the FIR in question, indubitab against the petitioners. From vailable on record, co-accused VN and had access to the offic

p in le is Over free here l of g to ourt d of ole's ack ng a ars, tion ties. g of or fish tude uth, ghly e is our n a ents bly, d –

system. D editing tra Jindal, wh several o orders. T involveme prepared outsourcin treasury th this Court or record considerin view the n possibility order to conspirac persuade cannot, by bail partic subsequen that no re this Cour During the course of investigati ansfer orders he facilitated the ho was his relative and petition r No.1), in DHBVN. The inves other persons were similarly a The allegations against the pe ent in a conspiracy whereby for and used for securing appoint ng policy followed by withdraw hereby causing financial loss to t is not required to conduct a de a finding regarding the guilt/in ng a prayer for grant of anticipa nature and gravity of the allegat tion, the manner in which the al y of further discovery of materia tion. The instant case pertains to obtain appointment in UHBV y and financial loss to the S rs that they have not been nam this Court at this stage. Mere y itself, be treated as a ground cularly when material showing t ntly surfaced during the course covery is to be effected from the rt as the investigation is still in

on, he allegedly disclosed that appointment of petitioner No.1 ner No.2 –– Mandeep (brother stigation has further indicated t appointed through forged trans etitioners pertain to their alleg rged transfer orders were alleged tments in the DHBVN under wal of salary from the Governm the State ex-chequer. At this sta etailed examination of the eviden nnocence of the petitioners. Wh atory bail, the Court has to keep tions, the material collected duri lleged offence was committed, al and the requirement of effect o forgery of official documents VN coupled with allegations State exchequer. The plea of med in the original FIR does n e absence of the name in the F sufficient for grant of anticipato the involvement of an accused h e of investigation. The contenti e petitioners also does not persua n progress. As regard to the r

by –– of hat sfer ged dly ent age, nce hile p in ing ive s in of not FIR ory has ion ade

ascribed t at this sta commissi

¶8collected the petitio this stage common as reflecte collected prosecutio disclosure in the off effectively in the FI prima fac which the the consi impede th agency be is necessa co-accuse considerin to the petitioners, the material p age, prima facie indicates that the on of offence. From a prima facie readin during investigation, it cannot b oners are wholly vague or devo r was not named in the initial F e. The material collected so fa intention and joint participation ed from the disclosure statemen rs, though emerging at a subsequ during the course of investigatio on version. In the considered vie e statement(s) and the extent of fence, are matter(s) requiring tho y undertaken only through custo R and the material collected d cie disclose an offence of che e role of the present petitioners i idered opinion of this Court, rs, at this stage, would hampe he recovery of material evidenc efore this Court is that the custod ary to recover the forged docum ed who may be involved in the o ng the plea for anticipatory bai

placed on record before this Cou ey have actively participated in ng of the FIR and the mater be said that the allegations agai oid of substance. The plea that FIR does not inspire confidence ar reflects prima facie evidence n of the petitioners and co-accus nt. The alleged involvement of uent stage, is supported by mater on which lends corroboration to ew of this Court, the veracity of f the involvement of the petition orough investigation which can odial interrogation. The allegatio during the course of investigati eating and criminal conspiracy is currently under investigation. granting anticipatory bail to er the ongoing investigation a ce. The stand of the investigati dial interrogation of the petition ments and ascertain the role of oth offence in question. At the stage il, the Court is not to evaluate

urt, rial inst e at of sed, rial ners be ons ion in In and ing ners her

evidence offence. at this stag

¶9remedy a Court is custodial possibility conspirac this nasce stage, from implicated considerin between s Court oug attributed deeper an stage, the made out prelimina accusation 1039, the but only to see whether prima f In the considered opinion of thi ge is likely to hamper the ongoin It is a trite law that the ant nd is to be granted only in exc satisfied that the accused has interrogation is not required. Co y of involvement of multiple pe y, if any, behind the occurren rs, it is not appropriate to grant an ent stage. No cause nay plausib m which it can be deciphered th d into the FIR in question. It is b ng a plea for grant of anticipator safeguarding individual rights an ght to reckon with the magnitude d to the accused; the need for fai nd wider impact of such alleged ere is no material on record to against the petitioner. The mate ary investigation, appear to est ns. Thus, it is not appropriate rs, as it would necessarily tion. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1 Hon'ble Supreme Court held as

facie allegations disclose a serio is Court, granting anticipatory b ng investigation. ticipatory bail is an extraordina ceptional circumstances where been falsely implicated and t onsidering the nature of allegatio ersons and to uncover the broad nce coupled with the role of nticipatory bail to the petitioners ble cause has been shown, at t hat the petitioners have been fals befitting to mention here that wh ry bail, the Court has to equilibr nd protecting societal interests. T e and nature of the offence; the r ir and free investigation as also d iniquities on the society. At t hold that prima facie case is n erial which has come on record a tablish a reasonable basis for to grant anticipatory bail to cause impediment in effect 1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (C under : (SCC p. 189, para 6)

ous bail ary hat ons, der s at this ely hile rate The ole this not and ive Cri)

¶10the petiti persons a thorough milieu of

11.

(i)

(ii) of opinion

(iii)

August 26 Ajay

"6. We find force in the submissi qualitatively more elicitation-orie well-ensconced with a favourable a case like this, effective inter tremendous advantage in disinter materials which would have interrogation would elude if the protected and insulated by a pre interrogated. Very often interroga a mere ritual. The argument tha with the danger of the person b need not be countenanced, for, su accused in all criminal cases. Th police officers would conduct th would not conduct themselves as o In view of the gravity of the oners as beneficiaries, the lar as also the necessity of custo investigation, this Court is of rs do not deserve the concession the case in hand. In view of the prevenient rati The instant petition is devoid Nothing said hereinabove sh n upon merits of the case/investig Pending application(s), if any

6, 2026

ion of CBI that custodial interrogation ented than questioning a suspect who e order under Section 438 of the Code rrogation of a suspected person is rring many useful informations and a been concealed. Success in s suspected person knows that he is w e-arrest bail order during the time he ation in such a condition would reduce at the custodial interrogation is frau being subjected to third-degree meth uch an argument can be advanced by he Court has to presume that responsi hemselves in task of disintering offen offenders." e allegations, the role attributed rger conspiracy involving seve odial interrogation for a fair a f the considered opinion that n of anticipatory bail in the fact iocination, it is ordained thus: d of merits and is hereby dismiss hall be deemed to be an expressi gation. y, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE

n is o is e. In s of also uch well e is e to ught ods y all ible nces d to eral and ual sed.