Arman Alias Armaan v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 27.05.2026 Arman @ Armaan

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present :- Mr. Nafees Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner.

***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) 1.

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 438 Cr.P.C.) seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.456 dated 06.11.2025 registered under Sections 303 and 304 of the BNS and later on added Sections 3(5) and 318 of the BNS (corresponding to Sections 378, 379, 34 and 415 IPC) at Police Station Sector-8, District Faridabad, Haryana. 2.

As per the allegations levelled by the prosecution, the mobile phone of the complainant was allegedly snatched during night hours on 03.11.2025 and thereafter, an amount of approximately Rs.91,000/- was transferred from the account of the complainant to different bank accounts by using the said mobile phone. During investigation, it surfaced that the present petitioner had actively participated in the occurrence and had allegedly retained the snatched mobile phone with him. It has further been

-2alleged that an amount of Rs.70,000/- is also to be recovered from the petitioner.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It has been argued that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and there is no direct or specific allegation against him. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused solely on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused and no recovery has been effected from him. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G., Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and opposes the present petition. He submits that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It has been argued that though the petitioner was initially nominated on the basis of disclosure statement, however, during investigation a clear link was found connecting him with the main accused persons. Learned State counsel further submits that amounts were transferred from the account of the owner of the mobile phone into three different accounts and the petitioner had actively participated in the commission of the crime after the mobile phone had been snatched by the co-accused. It has also been argued that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effecting recovery and unearthing the entire modus operandi.

6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

-3through the paper-book.

7.

Admittedly, the petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name surfaced during investigation on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused. However, after recording the disclosure statement, material surfaced during investigation connecting the petitioner with the main accused persons. The allegations against the petitioner are not merely limited to disclosure statement, rather there are specific allegations regarding transfer of the amount from the account of the mobile phone owner into three different accounts for utilization by the accused persons. The investigation further reveals that the petitioner had actively participated in the commission of the offence after the mobile phone had been snatched by the co-accused persons.

8.

Considering the serious nature of allegations, the active role attributed to the petitioner and the requirement of custodial interrogation for complete and effective investigation, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 9.

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 10.

However, nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

11.

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) 27.05.2026 JUDGE neetu Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No