Veer Sain v. State of Haryana

IN Veer Sain State of H Date of d Date of U CORAM Present:

SUMEET

¶1seeking g 2023 in F under Sec Sadar Bal

¶2made by Commissi workshop Sections 3 and the p entrusted dated 12. further all office of illegal gra THE HIGH COURT OF PUN CHANDIG

n

V/s Haryana

decision: 06.07.2026 Uploading : 07.07.2026 M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Mr. Siddharth Singh, Advoca Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, ***** T GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest b FIR No.288 dated 13.10.2025 r ction 7 of Prevention of Corru llabgarh, Faridabad, Haryana. The gravamen of the FIR r y complainant namely Nare ioned Officer of the Indian Arm p. As per the complainant, FIR 379-B, 323, 506 and 34 IPC had petitioner, then serving as a Sub with the investigation thereof.

03.2022 was also registered ag leged that while investigating th the complainant on 06.04.2022 atification. As per the complai

NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH

CRM-M-33910-2026

....Petitioner

....Respondent SUMEET GOEL ate for the petitioner. , Senior DAG Haryana. filed on behalf of the petition bail under Section 482 of BNS registered for offences punisha uption Act, 1988 at Police Stati reflects that a complaint has be ender Singh, a retired Jun my and proprietor of a vehicle rep R No. 95 dated 12.03.2022 und d been registered on his compla b-Inspector in Haryana Police, w A cross-case bearing FIR No. ainst the complainant. It has be he matter, the petitioner visited 2 at about 7:15 PM and demand nant, under fear and coercion,

ner SS, ble een nior pair der aint was een ded

paid an receiving Rs.20,000 criminal c that the e office of representa departmen of a fresh registered

¶3allegation the FIR ca of more Learned Assistant

18.01.202 has been audio rec has been findings i without an further co findings w learned c Supreme amount of Rs.10,000/-. It has the amount, the petitioner d 0/- and also threatened the com case in case he disclosed it to a entire episode was captured in t the complainant. Subsequently ation(s) before the vigilance aut ntal proceedings against the peti h complaint and supporting mate d. Learned counsel for the ns pertain to an incident allegedly ame to be registered only on 13. than 03 years which shows t counsel has further iterated th Commissioner of Police whi 23 has exonerated the petitioner specifically recorded that the C ording which can establish the further contended that once th in favour of the petitioner, the s ny fresh evidence, amounts to ab ontended that the report dated was arbitrary, mala fide and counsel has placed reliance o Court titled as Neeraj Dutta v. S

s been further alleged that af demanded an additional sum mplainant to implicate him in fa anyone. It has been further alleg the CCTV cameras installed at y, the complainant made vario thorities which led to initiation itioner and eventually upon rece erial, the impugned FIR came to petitioner has iterated that y occurred on 06.04.2022, where

10.2025 after an unexplained de that the same is an afterthoug hat an inquiry conducted by ich culminated into report da of allegation of bribery in which CCTV footage did not contain a demand for illegal gratification he inquiry officer has returned subsequent registration of the FI abuse of process of law. It has be d 17.03.2023 reversing the earl legally untenable. In this rega on the judgment of the Hon' State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) a

fter of alse ged ous of eipt be eas lay ght. ted h it any . It IR, een lier ard,

Madan L acceptanc Corruptio no audio r further co the allege independe case, ther involveme that the p suffered p of crimina counsel h aged abou cooperate the petitio not tampe condition( On the s entreated

¶4petition in against a extract ill under inv report reli Lal v. State of Rajasthan to co ce constitutes the sine qua non fo on Act. According to learned co recording and, therefore, cannot ontended that the complainant r ed demand and acceptance, th ent witness and no recovery of refore, rests only upon an inte ent in earlier criminal proceedin petitioner has already undergo punishment by way of withholdi al proceedings at this stage amou has further contended that the p ut 55 years; has fixed abode; dee e with the investigation. Learned oner is willing to join the investi er with evidence or influence any

(s) imposed by the Court in cas strength of these submissions, for. Per contra, learned State c n hand on the ground that the a police officer who allegedly legal gratification from the com vestigation by him. It has been ied upon by the petitioner canno

ontend that proof of demand a or offences under the Prevention ounsel, the CCTV footage conta t establish any demand. It has be remains the sole witness regardi here was no trap proceeding, tainted currency. The prosecuti erested witness on account of ngs. It has been further submit one departmental proceedings a ing of increments and the initiati unts to double harassment. Learn etitioner is a retired police offi ep roots in society & undertakes d counsel has further asserted t igation as and when required, sh y witness and shall abide by all se he is enlarged on pre-arrest b the grant of petition in hand counsel has opposed the grant allegations are serious and direc exploited his official position mplainant whose criminal case w n further iterated that the inqu ot be treated as conclusive eviden

n of ains een ing his ted ned cer s to hat hall ail. d is of ted to was uiry

of innoc proceedin major pun or basele assessmen pursuant that the foundatio seriousnes required material c the petitio may imp According petition.

¶5gone throu

¶6Hon'ble S Punjab, 2 ence. According to learned ngs culminated in findings adver nishment demonstrates that the a ess. Furthermore, an inquiry re nt and cannot substitute a c to registration of an FIR. Learn corruption by law enforceme n of public administration an ss. Moreover, the custodial to examine the alleged receip collected during departmental p oner is granted the concession pede the ongoing investigati gly, a prayer has been made 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

State counsel, the departmen rse to the petitioner and resulted allegations are not found to be fa eport is merely an administrat criminal investigation undertak ned State counsel has emphasiz ent officials strikes at the ve nd must be viewed with utm interrogation of the petitioner pt of illegal gratification and proceedings. Furthermore, in ca of pre-arrest bail, at this stage ion and obstruct the recove for the dismissal of the inst 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.

ntal d in alse ive ken zed ery most is ase , it ery. ant ave e of ence be acie e at nces

¶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 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

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 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

t in 013) ture sses t for ords nce" only used acie age, ond sole of p in le is Over free here l of g to ourt d of ole's ack ng a ars, tion

¶7nature. T investigat exploited from the affected establishe confidenc the petitio acceptanc the Preve serious an against an eroding p therefore, the grant 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 The allegations levelled ag The petitioner, who was a po tion of a criminal case and as pe the authority vested in him by complainant whose liberty an by the investigation under h ed, constitute a serious abuse of p ce in the criminal justice system. oner is with regard to absence ce. The allegations against the p ention of Corruption Act, 1988 nd grave. Corruption by a publi n individual but constitutes an o public confidence in the admi required to exercise a greater d of anticipatory bail in such case

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." gainst the petitioner are grave olice officer, was entrusted w er the allegations, the petitioner h y law to obtain illegal gratificati nd legal rights have been direc his control. Such allegations, public office and undermine pub The contention raised on behalf e of proof regarding demand a petitioner pertain to offences und 8 which by their very nature ic servant is not merely an offen offence against the society at lar inistration. Thus, the Courts a degree of caution while consideri es. From the perusal of the reco

g of or fish tude uth, ghly e is our n a ents in with has ctly if blic f of der are nce rge are, ing ord,

it emerge demanded stage, the vague or b no direct d requires a considera is only r disclose t interrogat investigat the petitio money tri

¶8public tru while exte offence, t would im raised by appreciati The same or during granting investigat used the a the compl es that the petitioner has misu d illegal gratification during the material collected during invest baseless. The contention that the demand or acceptance of illegal appreciation of evidence and no ation for plea for grant of anticip equired to see whether the al the commission of a cognizab tion is necessary for effective ting agency before this Court is oner is necessary to ascertain t ial. Economic offences and off ust and, therefore, the Court(s) ending the concession of anticip this Court is not inclined to gran mpede the investigation. Furtherm y the petitioner is a disputed ion of evidence, which cannot e can only be adjudicated upon t g the course of trial. In the c anticipatory bail at this stage tion. The allegations raised again authority vested in him as a po lainant. Such allegations, if pro

used his official position and h e investigation of the case. At t tigation cannot be brushed aside e petitioner is innocent and there gratification is a matter of trial a ot to be considered at the stage patory bail. At this stage, the Co legations, if taken at face val ble offence and whether custod investigation. The stand of that the custodial interrogation the complete details and trace fences related to corruption ero ) are required to exercise cauti patory bail. Given the nature of nt pre-arrest bail at this stage as more, the plea of false implicati d question of fact and requi be adjudicated upon at this sta the conclusion of the investigati considered opinion of this Cou is likely to hamper the on-goi nst the petitioner reflect that he h olice officer to exert pressure up oved during trial, would amount

has this e as e is of ourt lue, dial n of ode s it ires age. urt, ing has pon

misuse o proceedin punishme conclusiv were not f been show has been here that has to eq societal in of the off investigat on the so prima fac has come reasonabl anticipato in effectiv 1997 SCC 189, para f public office and corruption ngs have already been condu ent had been imposed. Althoug e proof of guilt in a criminal c found to be completely baseless. wn, at this stage, from which it c falsely implicated into the prese while considering a plea for gr quilibrate between safeguarding nterests. The Court ought to reck fence; the role attributed to the a tion as also the deeper and wide ociety. At this stage, there is no cie case is not made out against e on record and preliminary inv e basis for the accusations. Th ory bail to the petitioner, as it wo ve investigation. In State v. An C (Cri) 1039, the Hon'ble Supre 6) "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

n. Furthermore, the departmen ucted against the petitioner a gh departmental findings are n case but shows that the allegatio . No cause nay plausible cause h an be deciphered that the petition ent FIR. It is befitting to menti rant of anticipatory bail, the Co g individual rights and protecti kon with the magnitude and natu accused; the need for fair and f er impact of such alleged iniquit o material on record to hold tha the petitioner. The material wh vestigation, appears to establish hus, it is not appropriate to gr ould necessarily cause impedim nil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 18 eme Court held as under : (SCC 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

ntal not ons has ner ourt ing ure free ties at a ich h a rant ent 7 : C p. n is o is e. In s of also uch well e is

¶9specific r custodial considere anticipato

10.

(i)

(ii) of opinion

(iii)

July 06, 2 Ajay

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 Considering the nature and role assigned, the stage of inve interrogation for verification d opinion that the petitioner do ory bail in the factual milieu of th 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

2026

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." seriousness of the allegations, estigation as also the necessity of facts, this Court is of oes not deserve the concession he case in hand. 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

ught ods y all ible nces of of