Sanjay Kumar v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-30.03.2026 SANJAY KUMAR ......PETITIONER VS.

STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:

Mr. Ankur Lal, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Vipul Sherwal, AAG Haryana.

**** JASJIT SINGH BEDI , J.(ORAL ) The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 BNSS (Section 439 Cr.P.C.) is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.47 dated 16.12.2025 under Section 7, 13(1)B read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at Police Station SV and ACB, Gurugram.

2.

In brief the facts of the prosecution case are that on 16.12.2025, complainant Rajender submitted an application to Inspector Ved Prakash of ACB, Rewari to the effect that he is resident of village Karnawas, P.S. Model Town, Sector-4, Rewari and he had not paid his electricity bill for some period and on 30.10.2025, he paid entire remaining bill of Rs.47,307/- in the Electricity department, but despite that the officials of electricity department removed his meter in November, 2025. Upon enquiry by complainant in the

-2office of DHBVNL, Mukesh Kumar, ALM (granted bail vide order dated 13.03.2026 passed by this Court) told him that the complainant had to pay fine of Rs.1,50,000/-. Thereafter, the complainant also met with accused Sanjay, Clerk (petitioner) and he asked him on his mobile phone on 14.12.2025, to meet him at Banipur Chowk, Bawal on 16.12.2025 and to pay Rs.20,000/- of bribe money and thereafter, he will got installed his electricity meter. On 12.12.2025 and 15.12.2025, the complainant also talked with petitioner- accused Mukesh Kumar, Assistant Lineman who told him that he will not meet in the office and you will pay the bribe amount to Sanjay, Clerk and he will do the needful. The complainant further submitted that he has no rivalry with aforesaid officials, but he does not want to pay any amount of bribe.

The complainant also produced the call recording of the accused persons. Therefore, action against the delinquent official was sought. On this complaint, the present case was registered and investigation was set into motion. During investigation, the raiding party including Duty Magistrate was constituted and they along with shadow witness Vikas Sherawat, Executive Engineer, CADA, Rewari and Satish Kumar, J.E., CADA office, Rewari conducted raid in Banipur Chowk, Bawal. During raid proceedings, the complainant was provided 40 currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination total Rs.20,000/- after applying phenolphthalein powder.

Thereafter, during further proceedings of raid, on receiving of signal from shadow witness, the raiding party apprehended one person, who disclosed his name as Sanjay Kumar, Clerk, DHBVNL and he denied receiving any bribe money. But during search, currency notes of Rs.

-3Kumar, Clerk, DHBVNL, which were having same numbers and the hands of applicant-accused person were got washed by Sodium Carbonate solution, which turned Pink. Thereafter, the requisite proceedings of sealing the solution, currency notes and taking the photographs etc. was carried out by the raiding team and Sanjay Kumar and Mukesh Kumar, ALM were arrested on 16.12.2025. Upon completion of investigation, the challan was filed on 13.02.2026 and the sanction for prosecution along with FSL reports are awaited.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The co-accused namely, Mukesh Kumar has been granted the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 13.03.2026. As the petitioner is in custody since 16.12.2025, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Section 193 BNSS) stands presented but none of the 26 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail.

4.

The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner for demanding and accepting illegal gratification from the complainant. Therefore, he is not entitled to the concession as prayed for. He, however, concedes that the petitioner is in custody since 16.12.2025, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Section 193 BNSS) stands presented and none of the 26 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far and that co-accused namely

-4Mukesh Kumar has been granted the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 13.03.2026.

5.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6.

The veracity of the prosecution case against the petitioner and his co-accused shall be adjudicated upon during the course of the Trial. As he is in custody since 16.12.2025, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (193 BNSS) stands presented but none of the 26 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. In this situation, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required, moreso when a co-accused namely Mukesh Kumar has been granted the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 13.03.2026. 7.

Thus, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner, namely, Sanjay Kumar is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned. 8.

This petition stands disposed of.

9.

The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) 30.03.2026 JUDGE Kusum Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No