High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/26226/2026dismissed

Narinder Singh v. State Of Haryana

2026-05-08Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi13 pages

!"# $%&%!'

()*) Narinder Singh ...... Petitioner V/s State of Haryana

...Respondent

+,)---

Present:

Mr. Sankalp Dhanda, Advocate, with Mr. Balraj Sharma, Advocate, and Mr. Rajender Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Viney Phogat, DAG, Haryana --.

) /

The prayer in this second petition under Section 482 BNSS (Section 438 Cr.P.C.) is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.17 dated 07.12.2025 under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 61(2) and 308(2) of BNS (corresponding Sections 1209B, 384 IPC) registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Panchkula, Haryana.

The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Nitin Hooda and reads as under:9

# $

% &'

()*)(%

+ ,

-* ./0(1 $ ,

-11-..().0&,

2&'&3 .) ,

, $

% 4 # ,

5 &,

.&*

$ 6 &3 &1

$ %

&, % $ %

% 1

6 ,& ,% %

&8 %

2&'& 3 .),

, % %$ &#

,9 $

$ &#

.&(*:)

,$ &, 6 %

% ,&; $ $ ,%

2&'&3

(**** $

% $

9 %

% $ 1

$ .&(*!)

% ,

% 1(***$

& 9

$ % 9

& 9%

$ ,

, % %

$ &=

& 3.

During the course of the investigation, Paras Aggarwal was apprehended while accepting a sum of Rs.75,000/9 from the complainant to be handed over to SI Zora Singh and ASI Narinder Singh (petitioner) as illegal gratification for softening the investigation and to save the complainant's friend9Rahul Aggarwal who was arrested by SI Zora Singh in FIR No.184 dated 01.08.2025 under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340, 61(2) BNS, 2023, Police Station Sector 14, Panchkula from physical harm and custodial violence.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present FIR is a gross abuse of the process of the law and is an outcome of personal grudge with the complainant and Rahul Aggarwal. The petitioner has no role or involvement in FIR No.184 dated 01.08.2025. It is SI Zora Singh who is the investigating officer of the said case and is already in custody. In fact, Rahul Aggarwal had lodged an FIR No.336 dated 15.08.2025 under Sections 1209B, 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC registered at Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula (Annexure P93) against his wife and father9in9law/Sh. Ashok Kumar for commission of certain offences and it was in that case/FIR that the petitioner was the investigating officer. During the course of the investigation in FIR No.336 dated 15.08.2025 (Annexure P93), the name of Rahul Aggarwal appeared in the disclosure statement of Sh. Ashok Kumar, the father9in9law of Rahul Aggarwal upon which the

name of Rahul Aggarwal, the complainant of the said case, came to be arrayed as an accused by the petitioner. Co9accused/Paras Aggarwal was in contact with the petitioner for following up the investigation in FIR No.336 dated 15.08.2025 (Annexure P93) on behalf of his (complainant's) friend9 Rahul Aggarwal. The call records and WhatsApp messages do not in any way inculpate the petitioner. It is a case where there is no demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The present bail application is the second one on behalf of the petitioner and has been filed as it has been found that there are no call recordings containing any incriminating material against the petitioner. As the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. 5.

The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the allegations against the petitioner are duly mentioned in the FIR and have been solidified during the course of the investigation. In fact, it is mentioned in the Fir itself that Rs.50,000/9 were handed over to the petitioner by Paras Aggarwal in the presence of the complainant. The telephonic conversations between the complainant9Nitin Hooda and the accused persons, namely, Paras Kumar Aggarwal, SI Zora Singh and ASI Narinder Singh leave no doubt whatsoever that the petitioner alongwith SI Zora Singh is involved in the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The present second application has been filed without any material change in the circumstances after the first one came to be argued at length and withdrawn on 01.04.2026 (Annexure P96). Therefore, the second petition is not maintainable without any

material change in circumstances. As the investigation is to be taken to its logical conclusion and certain vital aspects of the case are to be ascertained from the petitioner, his custodial interrogation is certainly necessary and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. 6.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7.

!"#$ the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional cases where the Court is $ of the view that the accused has been falsely enroped in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or frivolous. The relevant extract of the judgment is as under:9 ).&>

$ $

$ 7

< $ %

4 $

< $

$ & 8.

This Court in % &

' (( ) *#$ while following the dictum of law laid down in

+ $ held as under:9

9. It is well settled law, and reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ? & , )*)(4

/)* that anticipatory bail in cases involving offences under the Corruption Act is to be granted only in the rarest of rare circumstances. The court is required to be prima facie satisfied either of false implication, political vendetta, or manifest frivolity in the complaint.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

+ ,- .

- - / .-

0 0 !))#$ has held that merely because custodial interrogation was not required by itself could not be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the foremost thing the Court hearing the anticipatory bail application is to consider is the $

case against the accused. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:9 @

$$ $ &. !

$ $

7 $ &.

& ?

$ &. 7 %

# 4

$ & % %

$ A$$

4 $

# 4

&> $

# 4 %

< %

,'4'

# 4 $

& 1

2 3+ 2

$ % 3 3

& 3 & 4 $ $ 3+ 2

2 & - ++ 33+ % 3 3 &

2 +3 $ % & & & 3+ 2 - & 3 +3 3 & % & % 3&

++3 5& 3+ 2 -

2 %3 3 &

4 $ +

3 & & 5 & 3+ 2 - & 3 & 3+ 2 ++3 3 +

3 3 + + &

- $ 3 5 & % 2 + -

& 3 & 3 & - (%$ 3 & 4 3 $ 2 $ 3 & & 3+ 2 &C 10.

Coming back to the facts of the present case, it is apparent from a bare reading of the FIR that the complainant handed over Rs.50,000/9 to one Paras Aggarwal who handed it over to the petitioner in his (complainant's) presence. The recordings of the phone conversations between the complainant, accused9Paras Kumar Aggarwal, SI Zora Singh

and ASI Narinder Singh which have been brought on record vide reply dated 31.03.2026 in CRM9M9957992026 (first petition by the petitioner seeking the concession of Anticipatory bail) establish that both the petitioner and SI Zora Singh were demanding money from the complainant so that the investigation would soften against the complainant's friend9Rahul Aggarwal who had been arrested by SI Zora Singh in FIR No.184 dated 01.08.2025 under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340, 61(2) BNS, 2023, Police Station Sector 14, Panchkula.

11.

During the pendency of the first anticipatory bail application (CRM9M9957992026), the State filed a reply by way of an affidavit of Shukar Pal, DSP, State Vigilance and Anti corruption Bureau, Panchkula dated 18.03.2026. The relevant extract thereof is as under:9 (&>

, %

A, B+

2 '

3 !.) ,

& >

,% 3 $$

3 $$

A, B

"D '

%% %

& &>

*1&.)&)*)(

,% %

% $

$ !, !.

5 & -11-..().0

,% % $ % %

& ,%

1(***:!

% & ,% *(&.)&)*)(

$ +

% %

+ % $ &#

, % 2 '

+ % %

&+ , %

A, B&

, & =

&1=

&'*&.)&)*)( %

, $ # A, B

&(****:! ,&#

*1&.)&)*)(

, $

& 1&>

& &*1&.)&)*)( +

()-/(/***---))/. /)&>

E &. 0 *.&* &)*)( /. A0B//A/B // /0*.A)B?, !.0,

$ D *1&.)&)*)(& &>

.(&.)&)*)(

$ $ %

$ ,+ A, B %

$ %

& >

$ ,% +

4E= ,

< )-&*.&)*)& $$

$ 4 %

7 $

,% %

*0&*0&)*)& FFFF FFFF FFFF ./& >

4 5

&-11-.!.().0A,% B5

& ()-/!(/*** G---))!/. /)A+ B5

&-0.1(!(-(-A B5

& ((1 !/-***G-* .!/0(1 A $ # B

4 : /A0B4 ?

*&*)&)*)& .0&>

+ A, B& %

* &.)&)*)(. &.)&)*)(./&*.&)*)&

+ 7

/(* 4,4 = 4

% .-&*.&)*)&>

% 5#4

8 $&

$ .-&*.&)*)

% $

! 2'3,

)*&*.&)*)& >

% & ! 8 %

# % $ $

%&>

+ 5

./&*/&)*) )(&*/&)*)& >

$ ,

)(&*/&)*)& FFFF FFFF FFFF .1&>

$ %

& >

$ %& >

$ 7 $ $

&(****:!%

$ $$

$ & H !$

E= & >

$ %

% $

& 12.

As regards the filing of a second anticipatory bail application, in 6- 4 7 4 8 / .- +3 9 .++ - ' -::":; 3 )-:-#$ the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:9

$ $$ %$

% % %

4 $$

$ $$

& )&>

# 4

$$ & /&>

$ = , & 0&, $$ $ & 13.

It is apparent that during the course of hearing of the first application (CRM9M9957992026) when this Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the learned Senior counsel chose to withdraw the said application. The instant second application has been filed without any material change in circumstances. When an accused withdraws his application for the grant of anticipatory bail, it implies that the Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail and therefore, the application was withdrawn so as to enable the accused to surrender and seek regular bail. A second application seeking anticipatory bail can only be filed in exceptional circumstances where there are material changes in the facts and circumstances after the first application seeking the grant of anticipatory bail was withdrawn.

14.

In the present case, there are absolutely no changes in circumstances warranting interference by this Court. To the contrary, though, SI Zora Singh has been arrested the petitioner who is an ASI has

been absconding for the last almost 06 months. Instead of surrendering and seeking the regular bail, after he had withdrawn his first bail application, he has filed the instant second petition. It appears that the investigating agency is deliberately not arresting him as he is one of their own. 15.

Further, as the offence is $ established against the petitioner as well, certain material aspects have to be ascertained from him and the investigation is to be taken to its logical conclusion, his custodial interrogation is certainly required.

16.

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I find no merit in the present petition and the same stands dismissed. 17.

However, it is made clear that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding this bail application and the Trial Court is free to adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of the evidence led before it uninfluenced by any such observations made. 18.

The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

1(. --

sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No