Roop Chand v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-21.05.2026 ROOP CHAND ......PETITIONER VS.

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

Present:

Mr. R.K. Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Sunny Namdev, AAG, Haryana.

**** JASJIT SINGH BEDI , J.(ORAL ) The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 BNSS is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.06 dated 12.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 7, 13(1) (b) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Gurugram, District Gurugram (Haryana). 2.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 12.03.2026, complainant Mohd. Ismile, presented a complaint at Vigilance Office for taking legal action under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Ashok Kumar, Clerk and Roop Chand, Computer Operator at SDM Office, Nuh alleging therein that he works as a typist at old Tehsil, Nuh and car dealers often get prepared the documents related to vehicles by him. Sometimes, car dealers prepare the file and send him to SDM Office, Nuh, along with both parties i.e. seller and purchaser to submit transfer file and NOC file. On 11.03.2026, he went to the SDM Office with six files, out of which five files

were related to NOC and one file was related to transfer. He went to room no. 106 of Ashok Kumar, clerk. Photographs of all parties were taken in the same room and he presented those files alongwith photographs to Ashok Kumar, who signed all the files and handed over to him to submit to Roop Chand, computer operator. He went to Roop Chand, who gave him ID and passwords for two files and told him to bring remaining files next day as he had some other work to attend to. In the evening, he received a missed call alert from Ashok Kumar, Clerk. He called Ashok Kumar who inquired about the files. He informed Ashok Kumar that two files have been submitted and remaining four will be submitted tomorrow. Ashok Kumar told him to meet him next day in the office. On 12.03.2026, when he met Ashok Kumar, Clerk in the office, he demanded Rs.

6,000/- for those six files. After that, he went to Roop Chand, Computer Operator, who also demanded Rs.2,200/- for the files. He was also having a recording of the demand of bribe by those person. He requested to take strict legal action against them. On this complaint, present FIR under sections 7, 13(1)B read with 13(2) of P.C. Act was registered. A trap was laid. Accused Ashok Kumar was apprehended and bribe money of Rs.6,000/- was recovered from him. 3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. In fact, the complainant is working as an agent in the office and used to bring files for vehicle transfer from various vehicle owners. Prior to the registration of the FIR, the complainant had a quarrel with the petitioner in the DC office when the petitioner refused to process certain files brought by the complainant because three of the six files were having pending challans. As per office

procedure, the petitioner only performs computer related work and processes files after verification and checking by the concerned RC Clerk namely Ashok Kumar/co-accused. On the date of incident, there were pending challans qua three vehicles. As the petitioner refused to process the files of the complainant till the challans were cleared, the complainant got annoyed leading to the registration of the present FIR. As the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation, he be granted to the concession of anticipatory bail.

4.

The learned State counsel has filed an affidavit 04.05.2026 of Arjun Dev, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, SV & Anti Corruption Bureau, Gurugram, which is taken on record. While referring to the said reply, he contends that the allegations levelled against the petitioner that he demanded Rs.2,200/- is apparent from the transcript of the recording available on the record as Annexure R-2. There were three vehicles which had pending challans for which Rs.1500/- was to be paid. The petitioner demanded Rs.2,200/- over and above the challan amount. As the offence is prima facie established and the investigation is to be taken up to its logical conclusion, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is certainly required and therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. 5.

I have heard learned counsels for the parties. 6.

As per the allegations, co-accused/Ashok Kumar was apprehended while accepting a bribe of Rs.6,000/-. The transcript of the recording attached as Annexure R-2 to the affidavit dated 04.05.2026 would prima facie established that the petitioner was demanding Rs.2,200/-. As regards the challan of three vehicles because of which the files could not be

processed, the recording would reveal that the complainant agreed to pay Rs.2,000/- immediately to the petitioner stating that he would pay the requisite fee regarding the challan to the concerned office. 7.

As the offence is prima facie established and the investigation is to be taken up to its logical conclusion, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is certainly required.

8.

Therefore, I find no merit in the present petition and the same stands dismissed.

9.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) 21.05.2026 JUDGE Kusum Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No