Judgment
CRM-M-51219-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
107
CRM-M-51219-2026
Date of decision: 10th September, 2026
Shiv Kumar ...Petitioner Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:
Mr. Amaninder Preet, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Apoorv Garg, Addl. A.G, Haryana.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No. 462 dated 21.06.2025 registered under Sections 305 of BNS at Police Station Kundli, District Sonippat.
2.
The aforementioned FIR has been registered on the basis of a complaint received from the Intelligence Officer, DGGI, Gurugram alleging therein that the office of DGGI, Gurugram had conducted a search operation on 17.06.2025 at the premises situated at Village Janti, Kundli, District Sonipat. During the course of the search, it was found that a gutka manufacturing unit was being illegally operated in the said premises. On PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.09.11 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-51219-2026 -2- inquiry, it was revealed that the said unit was being operated by the present petitioner along with co-accused Sunil Gupta. The premises were sealed. The petitioner was telephonically called upon to appear before the officials of the DGGI; however, he did not turn up and even switched off his mobile phone.
Thereafter, on 20.06.2025, a team of officials from the office of DGGI visited the spot to take custody of the seized goods lying therein. However, upon reaching there, it was found that the seized goods as well as the machinery used for manufacturing gutka, were missing. By alleging that the petitioner had removed the seized articles from the premise, a complaint was made for taking action in the matter.
3.
After registration of the FIR, investigation has been initiated and is underway. Accused Sunil Kumar, who was caretaker of the manufacturer unit was arrested. He suffered disclosure statement on 22.05.2026 disclosing that the petitioner had been running gutka manufacturing machine in the premises in question. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail, which has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonipat, vide order dated 05.08.2026.
4.
It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused, which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He has nothing to do with the premises in question. He is neither the tenant nor the owner thereof. The alleged theft/removal of the machinery and other articles could not have been committed by the petitioner, as the premises were neither accessible to him PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.09.11 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-51219-2026 -3- nor were under his control. He has been nominated only on the basis of unverified hearsay information. The ingredients for commission of subject offence are not attracted against the petitioner. In fact, the co-accused Sunil Gupta, who took his name was himself involved in several other cases and is a person having criminal antecedents. It is alleged that he has got the petitioner implicated in the present case in connivance with his accomplices namely Bagesh Gupta and Avdesh. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation.
His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.
5.
Notice of motion.
6.
Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition and has placed on record a copy of the disclosure statement of accused Sunil Gupta as well as a copy of the panchnama dated 17.06.2025. It is argued by him that at the time of conducting the raid itself, it had been revealed that the premises where gutka was being illegally manufactured were being operated by the petitioner along with co-accused Sunil Gupta. In the disclosure statement of accused Sunil Gupta, specific involvement of the present petitioner has also been attributed. For the purpose of conducting proper investigation in the matter, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. There is no exceptional or extraordinary circumstance warranting the exercise of powers by this Court for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is, thus, submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.09.11 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-51219-2026 -4- 7.
This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.
8.
The allegations against the petitioner are that he was involved in manufacturing of gutka by keeping machinery for the said purpose at the premises which were searched by the GST Department on 17.06.2025. The goods, including the machinery lying therein, were seized by the officials of the GST Department. However, when the officials subsequently visited the premises, the seized goods as well as the machinery were found to be missing.
The allegations against the petitioner, at this stage, prima facie disclose his involvement in the commission of the offences alleged against him. For the purpose of conducting thorough investigation, including eliciting information regarding the manner in which the alleged offence was committed and the circumstances in which the seized goods and machinery came to be removed from the premises, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. The case is at its nascent stage. In case his custodial interrogation is denied to the investigating agency, the same will leave many glaring loopholes and gaps adversely affecting the investigation. Moreso, it is well settled proposition of law that arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. The powers of anticipatory bail are extra ordinary and the same are to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation, possibility of applicant fleeing from justice and PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.09.11 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-51219-2026 -5- other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail as such grant to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence.
The Court has also to see that the order of anticipatory bail should not operate as inroad in the normal legal procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court.
The custodial interrogation of a suspected person is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 482 of BNSS. The Court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule and has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extra ordinary remedy. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing.
As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
9.
It is clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner.
10.
Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.
[MANISHA BATRA]
JUDGE 10th September, 2026 Parveen Sharma
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned
:
Yes / No
2. Whether reportable
:
Yes / No PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.09.11 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document