Murshlin v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.12.2025 Murshlin ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL Present:- Mr. Sanawar Ali, Advocate for the petitioner. *** H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.296 dated 19.09.2023 under Section 61 of Excise Act registered at Police Station Murthal, District Sonepat.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that on 19.09.2023, a secret information was received by SI Bijender that a Santro car bearing registration No. DL-2CAD-7058, travelling from Village Bhigan to Village Kami, had overturned near the canal due to the rash and negligent driving of its driver, who had fled from the spot thereafter. It was further informed that the said vehicle was loaded with illicit liquor and was lying at the spot. Upon receipt of this information, the police contacted the registered owner of the vehicle. After some time, the owner arrived at the spot with a crane bearing registration No. HR-10AF-1178 and got the vehicle restored to its upright position. On inspection and counting of the contraband, a total of 308 quarters of English

liquor and 1552 quarters of desi liquor were recovered and the same were taken into police possession in accordance with law. During the course of investigation, one Wasim was arrested and he suffered a disclosure statement stating that the car and liquor had been supplied to him by Dhole and Subhash. Thereafter, on the basis of the disclosure statement made by accused Subhash, the petitioner has been nominated in the present case. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no role in the alleged offence, as he is neither the owner of the car nor was he the driver thereof, and he has had no kind of transaction with any of the co-accused. He further submits that the only evidence against the petitioner is the disclosure statement, which is not supported by any other independent material. Therefore, he prays for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jangra, learned AAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and submits that the petitioner has been nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused. He opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and do not entitle him to the concession of anticipatory bail. He further submits that the petitioner is also facing non-bailable warrants in FIR No. 138 of 2024 registered at Police Station Bahalgarh, Sonipat.

6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material available on record.

7.

Keeping in view of the seriousness of the allegations and the fact that non-bailable warrants are already pending against the petitioner in

FIR No. 138 of 2024 registered at Police Station Bahalgarh, Sonipat, which further reflects his conduct of evading the process of law. This Court is of the considered view that no ground is made to extend extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.

8.

However, it is clarified that the observations made hereinabove would not have any bearing on the merits of the case. (H.S. GREWAL) JUDGE December 11, 2025 renu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No