Mangal vs State of Haryana

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail in the FIR mentioned below:-

Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant Mahesh Kumar alleging that on the intervening night of 29/30.04.2026, a pick up vehicle bearing registration No.HR-62A-4996 driven by some unknown persons had entered inside his godown by breaking open the lock of the same and 50 quintals of wheat was loaded in that vehicle and was stolen. He also informed that the abovesaid vehicle had got stuck into the mud in the fields and was left along with the wheat there. He prayed for taking action in the matter.

After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the aforementioned vehicle was owned by the present petitioner. Ram Kumar son of the petitioner was apprehended and suffered disclosure statement that the petitioner was one amongst the persons who had committed the theft. The petitioner was nominated as accused. Apprehending his arrest, he moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide order dated 29.07.2026.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. The stolen wheat already stands recovered. Only on account of ownership of the abovementioned vehicle, his complicity in the crime cannot be established. He is ready to join investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Addl. AG, Haryana has advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter. It is submitted by him that there are specific allegations against the petitioner. It was he who owned the vehicle recovered from the spot itself. He was also one of the occupants of the vehicle. For the purpose of conducting thorough investigation, his custodial interrogation is must. There is no exceptional ground to extend benefit of pre arrest bail to the petitioner. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

This Court has considered the rival submissions.

The petitioner is alleged to have used his vehicle for the purpose of committing theft of 50 quintals of wheat from the godown of the complainant on the fateful night. The said vehicle which had got stuck in the mud as well as the wheat has been recovered from the nearby fields, however, the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of subject offences prima facie stands established. The case is at its nascent stage. For the purpose of eliciting information as to the manner in which the subject offence was committed and for the purpose of proper investigation, his custodial interrogation is required. In case, the same is denied to the investigation agency, that shall leave many glaring loopholes and gaps, adversely affecting the investigation. The powers of anticipatory bail are extraordinary and the same are to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.