Surender Malik v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-21113-2026 DECIDED ON: 20.04.2026 SURENDER MALIK .....PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.

Present:

Mr. Shiv K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Amish Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

SANJAY VASHISTH , J (ORAL) 1.

Present petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking grant of anticipatory bail, in case, FIR No.200, dated 22.06.2024, under Sections 406/420 of IPC (sections 467/468/471/34 of IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Israna, District Panipat. 2.

As per the allegations, complainant-Naveen, was induced by one Mamta on the pretext of securing a job in Krishi Bhawan, Nirman Bhawan. It is further alleged that when the accused-Sunil, arranged a meeting of the complainant with co-accused Mamta, she falsely projected herself as a Judge of the Hon'ble High Court and assured that she would secure appointments in Agricultural Building, Construction Building, and also in Group 'D' posts through her influence. It is alleged that an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid in cash on 10.10.2019, followed by Rs.2,00,000/- on 02.12.2019, Rs.1,00,000/- on 03.12.2019, and a further Rs.1,00,000/- was transferred to the account LAVISHA 2026.04.20 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

CRM-M-21113-2026 -2of Bank of Baroda on 22.12.2019 from the complainant's account. Additionally, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was transferred through Google Pay at the asking of accused Mamta. However, neither the promised employment was provided nor the amount was refunded. 3.

It is noticed that the first anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner, i.e. CRM-M-47461-2024, was dismissed as withdrawn, on 21.04.2025 (Annexure P-3).

4.

This Court does not find it appropriate to entertain the prayer made in the present petition, as the earlier anticipatory bail petition was withdrawn about one year ago.

It is also surprising that, despite such circumstances, and for reasons not forthcoming from the record, petitioner was never arrested till date, rather, he has again approached this Court by way of present second anticipatory bail petition. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed.

5.

The concerned Senior Superintendent of Police is directed to look into the matter, as to why the investigation is not being proceeded with in accordance with law, and to apprise this Court by way of filing a status report in this regard.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) 20.04.2026 JUDGE Lavisha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No LAVISHA 2026.04.20 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh