Shiva v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-20981-2026 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.205 CRM-M-20981-2026 Decided on : 14.05.2026 Shiva ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM :


  

 *** Present :

Mr. Sahil Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana for the respondent-State.

***  

 , J (ORAL)
 



 
 











 





!"


 
  #
 
 
 
 
#$
#
$
!%
 

 
$
 &   
 










'

(
 
 
)   
   






 
 *

+   
 **
, 

- 



!"

 . 
 
















*   





-


 




 
/





 


 


 
 

. 
 






!"



( 


!"
 









  



 



-








   




  



there is nothing on

CRM-M-20981-2026 2 record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner, and his custodial interrogation is not required. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Agency and shall fully cooperate with the investigation. On these grounds, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed. 4 On the other hand, learned State counsel while referring to the status report already filed, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He contends that the forged certificate was provided to candidate Shabana by charging a sum of Rs.

12,000/- and the signatures on the said certificate are of the petitioner, therefore, he is required for custodial interrogation to find out as to how he had prepared forged certificate, forged signatures and stamp of Programme Officer and misused the same. Further, during investigation, statement of one witness namely Shinam (Para Legal Worker) was also recorded against the petitioner and co-accused. Thus, the petitioner does not deserve any concession from this Court.


 
/




 




 
   

 
 * 
  

!


 






'



 
 



 
 *

 **
, 
 
* 

*






 *


 
'


*


* 1
. 
2&3

'





( 

 
 

 

//





*

/

/






4


 



CRM-M-20981-2026 3  * 
'

 
* 
 /


*
 *
 * 


 / 

5 
%



 






  





 


6 
  


/


 
 





*



 

/ 

 
 


* 




(   



 

4


 
'


 



 * 
 
'


7  


* 




 


 * 
 
  


 
 

%  


/ 



 


  








 /

*

 #
!





*




  








 


% 
6   
 '
 

 / 



 
 

  

 13
5 
%


&


*


 




 8





  


8



 
 






 ' 
* 


 
6 



  

!

'



 

7


- 9
 *
%

   


'

 
 

 :

    

 

             

  

      

  

              



 !  "#$      

        %      

    



 

 

        

         

    !  

   %  



      

   

           

 &

  

 



CRM-M-20981-2026 4

           '          

  

                    (    

      



    

        '      



            %   

    

    
$

- ;
 *
% 





"P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement", (2019) 9 SCC 24
' 


 * 
 


'




 
 
 


) 

 * 
 
5 
/




7


 

 :(
))* 

  !

 ! +   (   

  

   

  ,     -.

%!  !



!    /0!#$ 
12.  

    

  

                 

   

  * 

             ,       

     

    4 5

6  )$.

 ! "#$ .  ,

 



 ,     7



 

  

     5

         

   

     8 

 5 

  * %9 -    

   

    



CRM-M-20981-2026 5 :::::::::

$#;

   

  

         

       



        !  

 

% 

  

  ;

      

         



            <                  

   5 

  8 

                

      

   

4  <




%
 

*




 
*  )





=/
  








 /





 

' 
/
* 

 
'



 
5 



/ 

* 


 *  > !


*


 
 /
 

*




)  




* 



?

      



**

  Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No


  








:










@?