Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohd. Shakil vs State Of Haryana on 17 February, 2026
CRM-M-9276-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
107 CRM-M-9276-2026
Date of decision : 17.02.2026
MOHD. SHAKIL
......PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
...... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present: Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana.
******
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):
1. This is a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.163 dated 20.08.2025 under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 42(3)(E) Telecommunication Act and Sections 66-D, 67-A IT Act 2000, Police Station Cyber Crime, District Nuh.
2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being in the backdrop of following facts:-
"On 20.08.2025, when Sub Inspector Yashpal along with police officials was present at Bus Stand Singar in official vehicle, a reliable source met him and gave an information about the accused Shahrukh. According to 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 19-02-2026 22:38:43 ::: CRM-M-9276-2026 2 above-named police officer with the assistance of above-mentioned informant, the accused Shahrukh was apprehended from whose possession two mobile phones were recovered. As per prosecution on checking of gallery of above-
mentioned mobile phone obscene and sextortion videos and photographs were found, and it was revealed that facebook ID of Anita Kumari and whatsapp number in the name of Pooja Sharma were being used."
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on enquiry, the above-said persons disclosed that by using fake sim cards he used to create fake whatsapp account in the name of girls and placed beautiful photographs as status on the above-mentioned whatsapp number and then trap common man and indulge them in conversation, record their video with the use of certain apps and thereafter, by editing the above-mentioned videos and photographs, used to blackmail them and extort money.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of above-mentioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution during the course of investigation it was revealed by the accused Shahrukh that the petitioner was also part of above-mentioned racket, who used to act as a police official and thereby put pressure upon the victim to pay money to Shahrukh.
5. Heard.
6. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and that neither any money was ever paid to the petitioner nor any of his gazette was used for the commission of offence nor he had made any call to the victim and 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 19-02-2026 22:38:44 ::: CRM-M-9276-2026 3 thus the implication of petitioner in the present case is merely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused is illegal.
7. The learned State counsel has controverted the above-mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel in the present case the investigation is still at initial stage and that the name of the petitioner has cropped up during the course of investigation, when his co-accused Shahrukh suffered a disclosure statement. As per learned State counel to fix the role of the petitioner, if any, in the commission of offence the extent of his contribution in the commission of offence and also to recover the uniform of police official, which he might have used, his custodial interrogation is necessary.
8. The record has been perused carefully.
9. At the very out-set it is relevant to mention here that the petitioner is seeking the benefit of anticipatory bail and with regard to anticipatory bail the principles of law have been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282', are relevent. It has been observed in the above-mentioned case that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is a rule.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the abovementioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the abovesaid power the 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 19-02-2026 22:38:44 ::: CRM-M-9276-2026 4 Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation.
11. Similarly, in the case of 'Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024', the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence.
12. In the case of 'Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab 1980 SCC (2) 565', the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that:-
(i) The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only.
(ii) In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail.
(iii) Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be exercised.
4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 19-02-2026 22:38:44 ::: CRM-M-9276-2026 5
13. In the light of above-mentioned principles of law if the factual matrix of the present case is analyzed, it transpires that at this stage when the Investigating Agency is still collecting evidence, if the opportunity of custodial interrogation of the petitioner is denied to the Investigating Agency it may lead to a situation that the investigation of this case may not take a proper headway and would suffer a very serious set back. Otherwise also the right of custodial interrogation of an accused/suspect is one of the valuable right of Investigating Agency and in ordinary course the Investigating Agency should not be deprived of this right.
14. In view of above-mentioned observations and the nature of an offence committed in the present case, wherein the victim usually don't come out to lodge a complaint, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is of utmost importance. Thus, it is hereby held that the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail and the present petition for anticipatory bail, being devoid of merits, deserves dismissal. The same is hereby dismissed, accordingly.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
17.02.2026
vipin Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 19-02-2026 22:38:44 :::