Jagbeer v. State Of Haryana
CRM-M-15059-2026 -1-
!" #$%$ &'(")($*+
' ,- ./ ..
! " # $$$ . +0 -1' %
#
&'( )
* *
(+(, - .) /0
*
#
12
,3 ('+((+(4
56
!
57'6-
./0-
(7 !
#
0 #
!8 (
##
('+((+(4
9 +( * 5+ 9 9
9 9
%
9 *
% 9 ## :
#
9
9
#
##
9 9 9
CRM-M-15059-2026 -2- 6 +++;<
< = 2
#
#9 > #
#
88 +3+,(+(4 , # #
## #
# < 9
#
#9#
?
9 9
;
#
) % @
#9
#
*
9#
#
# #%
#
9
8
#
?
8
# 2
A
< # &
# #9 ##
#
##
9
# # 9 9 # 6 +++;<
< #
#
?
CRM-M-15059-2026 -3-
%
A
# A
#2
## 9 6 This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 6.
The petitioner was nominated in this case on the disclosure statement of the co-accused. Admittedly, he is registered owner of the vehicle from which the recovery was effected. The investigation conducted so far has revealed that there was transaction of money between the petitioner and coaccused Naveen at the relevant time. The case is at its nascent stage. For the purpose of conducting thorough investigation in the matter, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. Even otherwise, the petitioner has failed to make out any exceptional or extraordinary circumstance making out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail to him.
It is well settled that anticipatory bail to an accused can be granted in exceptional circumstances only as a person couched in comparative safety of pre-arrest bail would certainly not disclose all the facts within his knowledge. In case custodial interrogation of the petitioner is denied to the Investigating Agency, that shall leave many glaring loopholes and gaps, thereby adversely affecting the investigation. In view of the above discussed facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
7.
It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only
CRM-M-15059-2026 -4for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
#
#
2. 3 (")($*+