Ved Parkash vs State of Haryana

Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case vide FIR No. 366 dated 11.08.2026, under Section 229(1) BNS Police Station Model Town, District Rewari. Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) BNS were added in the FIR during investigation. This is the first application for anticipatory bail.

A complaint was received from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, in the office of Superintendent of Police, Rewari, on 11.08.2026, informing that in case titled 'State vs. Tofiq', accused Vipin failed to put in appearance upon which non-bailable warrants with notice to surety and identifier were issued. Later accused was ordered to be summoned through proclamation. One Satish Kumar appeared and moved application seeking withdrawal of bailable warrants issued against him alleging that his name was wrongly mentioned in the surety bond and he had been wrongly identified by Ved Prakash, Nambardar. He stated in the application that he never appeared before the Court to stand surety for accused Vipin and never applied or obtained revenue documents of his property; that a false Aadhar card was prepared and submitted in the Court. The Court observed that the Aadhar card and photograph on the case file were different from the Aadhar card presented by the applicant and that Ved Prakash, Nambardar, wrongly identified some one who had impersonated Satish Kumar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was neighbour of co-accused Naveen, who had impersonated Satish Kumar but petitioner identified Naveen Kumar, whose photographs was affixed on the Aadhar card. He further submits that petitioner had no criminal intent, he had clean antecedents and was ready and willing to join investigation. Forgery and cheating, if any, was committed by co-accused.

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail submitting that petitioner was a habitual offender, who was involved in one other case of similar nature and considering the serious nature of allegations, he did not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.

The benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of course or routine. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court is required to balance the right of the prosecution for free, fair and unhindered investigation as also personal liberty of the accused and interest of the society. Role attributed to the accused is required to be considered with great care and caution. Anticipatory bail being an extra-ordinary remedy is to be granted only in exceptional circumstances, where the Court is prima facie of the view that the accused has been falsely involved in the crime.

Anticipatory bail cannot be allowed only for the reason that custodial interrogation of accused is not necessary. The gravity of charge and nature of allegations are of utmost relevance. Allegation against the petitioner, who allegedly identified a fake surety before the Court of learned Additional Session Judge, Rewari, are grave. Such offences constitute a serious fraud on the judicial system, affecting the very administration of criminal justice. They need to be curbed and dealt with strongly.

Dismissed.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.