Sanjay v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.214 (3 cases) Case No. : CRM-M-53927-2025 Decided On : November 12, 2025 Sanjay ....
Petitioner vs.
State of Haryana ....
Respondent CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.
* * * Present :
Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sulinder Kumar, DAG, Haryana.
* * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J.
:
Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.578 dated 09.09.2025, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Kharkhoda, District Sonipat.
The brief facts of the present case are that complainant Alka, who had got registered the aforesaid FIR, was the owner of an i-20 car bearing registration No.HR-13-Q-7849, which met with an accident on 29.03.2021. The Insurance Company sanctioned claim of Rs.5,00,000/- to aforesaid Alka and sold the said accidental car to a scrap dealer. During investigation, it was found that the aforesaid car was found to have been taken on superdari by executing Power of Attorney in the name of one
Ravinder, for which Surender stood surety. On the basis of disclosure statement made by said Ravinder, the petitioner and other co-accused were found involved in cheating and forgery of documents, for taking the vehicles on superdari by hatching conspiracy.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the present case as he has nothing to do with the alleged offence and allegations levelled in the present case are false and frivolous. In fact, the petitioner has no connection with the complainant, the vehicle in question or any transaction related thereto. No specific role has been attributed to the petitioner in the FIR. He is neither a party to any agreement nor was involved in any transaction and no recovery is to be effected from him. In these circumstances, learned counsel urged that the petitioner is not required for any interrogation and he be granted concession of anticipatory bail.
Learned State counsel opposed the present bail petition and contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. Upon the request of petitioner (Sanjay) and his sons namely Rohit and Aman, the other co-accused got the vehicles released on superdari on forged documents and handed them over to the sons of petitioner. Moreover, at the time of superdari of car bearing registration No.UP-53-GJ9969, petitioner stood as surety. As such, his custodial interrogation is required for fair and proper investigation and therefore, he does not deserve concession of anticipatory bail.
Heard.
As per the allegations in the present FIR, the petitioner, along
with other co-accused, got released vehicles Nos. UP-53-GJ-9969 and HR13-Q-7849 on superdari, on basis of forged documents. As per the Status Report, filed by learned State counsel, there is specific allegation qua the petitioner that he was the surety for getting released the vehicle bearing registration No.UP-53-GJ-9969 on superdari, by using forged documents. Thus, as the petitioner used the forged documents for taking the aforesaid vehicle on superdari, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for fair and proper investigation in the case. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case in hand, it is not a fit case where the petitioner deserves to be granted extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.
However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of along with the present petition.
November 12, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?
Yes/No.
Whether reportable ?
Yes/No.