Sagar Singh Sehrawat vs State of Haryana

Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 207 dated 10.06.2026, registered under Sections 125, 221, 231, 233, 238 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Gadpuri, District Palwal.

The brief facts of the case are that the investigation of case bearing FIR No.129 dated 14.04.2026 under Sections 115, 118, 190, 191(3) BNS PS. Gadpuri District Palwal was conducted by HC Amit Kumar. During investigation, the video prepared on the spot was examined. The said case was registered on the complaint of Savita Devi wife of Ajit Singh against Dheeraj, Dariyab, Jile Singh, wife of Jile Singh and Kuldeep that they have quarreled regarding encroachment upon the land and giving knife injury to father-in-law of the complainant Gian Singh, who was medico-legally examined on 13.04.2026. On examination of the complaint and circumstances on the spot, the matter had appeared suspicious. Therefore, DDR No.17 dated 13.04.2026 was registered. Then present FIR was registered and investigation was conducted by ASI Rajender. In the MLR produced by the complainant Savita, the doctor has mentioned two injuries. Injury no.1 was found to be caused with sharp edged weapon, whereas injury no.2 was found to be caused with blunt edged weapon. The time of MLR was 11.04 PM. Whereas the quarrel has taken place on the spot twice first at 03:00 PM and then at 05:00 PM. On the examination of CCTV footage of the first quarrel, it was seen that Gian Singh was beaten only with slaps and fist blows. There is no sharp edged injury seen in the video. In the second quarrel at 05:00 PM, the video showed that both the sides are throwing stones at each other and one of the parties suffered bullet injury. But both the parties did not go near each other. A CCTV footage of village Kishorpur at 06:00 PM was obtained in which Gian Singh was seen driving a tractor. Subsequently, a secret information was received by the police that in order to falsely invoke Section 307 IPC/109 BNS, Gian Singh along with the present petitioner and co-accused Lalit Kumar, who was an OT Technician, manipulated the medical record, so as to invoke aforesaid offence. During investigation, co-accused Lalit Kumar was arrested. His disclosure statement was recorded. Since the blade used in inflicting the cut and money given in lieu thereof could not be recovered as the evidence was destroyed, Section 238 BNS was invoked. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal but the same was dismissed, vide order dated 07.08.2026.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He had no nexus with the alleged offence. It is argued that no specific role or overt act has been attributed to the petitioner in the FIR and that there is no material connecting him with the alleged fabrication of evidence or conspiracy. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had earlier been granted regular bail in FIR No. 128 dated 14.04.2026 arising out of the same sequence of events. It is submitted that the present FIR is an extension of the earlier dispute and has been lodged to falsely implicate the petitioner. Co-accused Lalit Kumar, who is alleged to have inflicted the injury for manipulation of record and whose disclosure statement forms the basis of the prosecution case, has already been granted regular bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, vide order dated 02.07.2026. Co-accused Ravinder Dagar @ Kalli has also been granted interim protection by this Court vide order dated 03.08.2026 passed in CRM-M-40411-2026. On parity, the petitioner too deserves to be given the benefit of bail. No recovery is to be effected from him. He is ready and willing to join the investigation and abide by any condition imposed by this Court. His custodial interrogation is not required. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him into custody. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

Notice of motion.

Learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the victim, has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and specific. The petitioner, along with the co-accused, was involved in a conspiracy to fabricate false evidence with a view to falsely implicate the complainant party in a case involving an offence punishable for attempt to murder. It is submitted that the injury on Gian Singh was got inflicted through co-accused Lalit Kumar, an OT Technician and that the material collected during investigation indicates fabrication of evidence and an attempt to mislead the investigating agency. Learned State counsel submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for an effective investigation into the alleged conspiracy and fabrication of evidence. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

This Court has heard the rival submissions.

The allegations against the petitioner relate to his involvement in the alleged conspiracy to fabricate evidence and falsely invoke a serious penal provision against the complainant party. The prosecution has specifically asserted that his custodial interrogation is required to unravel the conspiracy and the manner in which the alleged fabrication was carried out. At this stage, the plea of parity with the co-accused does not entitle the petitioner to anticipatory bail, particularly when the circumstances of each accused are required to be considered independently. The allegations prima facie make out a case for commission of alleged offence against the petitioner. His custodial interrogation is required for conducting thorough and proper investigation in the matter. In case his custodial interrogation is denied to the investigating agency, the same will leave many glaring loopholes and gaps adversely affecting the investigation. The powers under Section 482 of BNSS are extraordinary and the same are to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. However, 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 made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.