Kamal Kant v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH (219) DATE OF DECISION:12.05.2026 Kamal Kant ........Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana .........Respondent

CORAM

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA

Present

Mr.Rahul Dahiya Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Surender Singh Pannu, Addl. AG, Haryana.

*** SUBHAS MEHLA, J (ORAL) 1.

This is the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short - 'the BNSS') seeking anticipatory bail in a case bearing FIR No.224 dated 05.09.2025 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short - 'the BNS'), registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Jind. 2.

Allegations qua the present petitioner are that he committed cheating and forgery by selling a 'Thar' vehicle by impersonating as its owner, namely 'Shabh Ram'.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the following grounds: That the petitioner was not named in the FIR;

ii.

That the petitioner was nominated solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Punit, which is inadmissible in evidence;

iii.

That there is nothing attributed to the present petitioner as to his involvement in the main controversy in question; rather co-accused Punit has stated involvement of petitioner in another case; iv.

That the petitioner has nothing to do with the present FIR as a complaint was made by the original owner of the vehicle in question and same was withdrawn as a compromise has been effected between the parties;

v.

That the petitioner has clean and clear antecedents and is ready and willing to join the investigation.

4.

Mr. Surender Singh Pannu, Addl. AG, Haryana, appears on behalf of respondent/State and submitted that a reply on behalf of respondent/State has already been filed; the same is taken on record. Learned State counsel opposes the bail petition on the following grounds; That there are specific allegations qua the petitioner as to cheating and forgery;

ii.

That the petitioner impersonated 'Shabh Ram' i.e as the real owner of the vehicle in question bearing registration No. HR-51CF0975, and created forged and fabricated documents to sell the said vehicle to one Krishan;

iii.

That during investigation, CCTV footage has surfaced which support the allegations qua the petitioner; and

iv.

That the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation to elicit intricate details of modus operandi adopted by the petitioner in the commission of offence.

5.

Heard.

6.

Keeping in view the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds no merit in the present petition to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the following grounds:

That the petitioner has been named in the disclosure statement of co-accused Punit and it is alleged that petitioner impersonated as 'Shabh Ram' i.e owner of a 'Thar' vehicle, and sold the same without any authority;

ii.

That as submitted by learned State counsel, incriminating evidence has surfaced qua the petitioner in the form of photographs and videos retrieved from CCTV footage, wherein petitioner can be seen selling the vehicle and taking money;

iii.

That sale proceeds qua the 'Thar' vehicle which are to be recovered from the petitioner; and iv.

That custodial interrogation is imperative for effecting a proper investigation and eliciting intricate details of the modus operandi adopted by the petitioner in commission of offence in the present case.

7.

Anticipatory bail is an extra-ordinary relief which can be granted only in exceptional cases deserving of the concession, and is to be granted sparingly.

8.

Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of custodial interrogation in case titled as 'CBI Vs. Anil Sharma, 1997 AIR Supreme Court 3806' decided on 03.08.1997, by holding that many useful informations and concealed materials may be elicited from a suspect in custody, than a suspect who is well-protected by an order of anticipatory bail, in which case, interrogation may be reduced to a mere ritual.

9.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, present petition is hereby dismissed.

10.

Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be an expression of opinion by this Court lest it may prejudice the trial. The learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law.

11.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 12.05.2026 (SUBHAS MEHLA) mamta JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No