Sombir vs State Of Haryana

1
CRM CRM-M-56580 CRM CRM 56580 56580-2026 56580 2026 2026 2026


103 103 103 103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH

CRM CRM-M-56580 CRM CRM 56580 56580-2026 56580 2026 2026 2026

Sombir
….Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana
….Respondent

Date of Decision: November 13 Date of Decision: November 13, 2026 , 2026
Date of Decision: Date of Decision: November 13 November 13 , 2026 , 2026
Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: November 13 Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: November 13 November 13, 2026 November 13 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present: Present:- Present: Present: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Harmanpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.


SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 438 Cr.
P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.400
dated 27.07.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2),
316(2), 318(4) of the BNS, 2023 (Sections 316(5) & 317(2) of the BNS added
later on), at Police Station Sadar Bhiwani, District Bhiwani.
2. For the sake of ease, relevant factual milieu is drawn from the order
dated 09.09.2026 passed by the concerned Sessions Court (whereby anticipatory
bail plea of the petitioner was rejected), reads thus:
“ 2. Pursuant to record, necessary facts, leading to case of prosecution,
are that Ankul Goyal, owner of Shri Mahabir Oil & General Mill, Ganga
Nagar, moved complaint to police, stated therein that, ‘on 18.07.2026, he
got loaded an oil tanker containing 30.560 tonnes of mustard oil, in Baba
Nihal Giri Ji Road Lines, vehicle bearing no. HR61E-1188, with driver







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.13 15:52
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

2
CRM CRM-M-56580 CRM CRM 56580 56580-2026 56580 2026 2026 2026

Ajay son of Dalbir, resident of Chang, at 11.30 PM. But in the way, the
vehicle overturned at 3:00 AM, at a distance of about 3 km from National
Agro, Chang. There is a police post towards one side of that place and a
naka {barricade} duty towards the other side. The driver claimed that 24
tonnes of oil had fallen on the road, but upon inspection, only 1 {one}
tonnne was found. He requested the police to investigate the matter. On
the basis of this complaint, FIR was registered. Investigation was carried
out. xx xx xx. ”

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned Senior
Counsel has contended that, in the initial version, the incident was reported as a
road accident wherein the vehicle had turned turtle and oil had spilled onto the
road, with no allegation whatsoever regarding theft, misappropriation or
disappearance of oil. It has been argued that the FIR in question was registered
after a delay of approximately 09 days, with the ulterior motive of extracting
money from the accused by falsely implicating in a criminal case. Learned Senior
Counsel has further contended that the petitioner has been implicated solely on the
basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused – Ajay, who was driving the
vehicle in question, and merely because the vehicle belonged to the petitioner. No
specific role or allegation of theft or misappropriation of oil has been attributed to
the petitioner. It has also been pointed out that there are material contradictions
between the initial and subsequent versions regarding the quantity of oil allegedly
recovered/found at the spot. It has also been submitted that the case is primarily
based on documentary evidence and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is not warranted.
3.1. Learned Senior counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered
from the petitioner. Learned Senior counsel has further iterated that the petitioner
is ready and willing to join investigation. On the basis of the aforementioned
submissions, grant of the instant petition is prayed for.







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.13 15:52
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

3
CRM CRM-M-56580 CRM CRM 56580 56580-2026 56580 2026 2026 2026

4. Learned State counsel has filed reply by way of an affidavit dated
15.10.2026, which is already on record. Role of the petitioner, as mentioned in the
said reply, reads thus:
“ 11. The role of the present petitioner is that he is the mastermind of the
case who committed fraud, stole mustard oil valued at ` 19,00,000
( ` 15,00,000 + ` 4,00,000) consisting of approximately 3/4 tonnes
of mustard oil, loaded it using a tractor-tanker, and sold it off. That
the Call Detail Records (CDR) and location analysis of petitioner
Sombir’s phone place him at the scene of the crime and establish
his presence at every stage of the offense. During the investigation,
it was found that petitioner Sombir along with co-accused Amit
and Ajay executed the and the present petitioner Sombit, along
with both his drivers intercepted the oil-laden truck shortly after it
departed from the mill near the abandoned hotel on Meham-
Bhiwani Road, transferring approximately 4 tonnes of oil into his
own tractor-tanker. The present petitioner Sombir had pre-planned
the conspiracy to steal the oil, in accordance with which present
petitioner Sombir placed a phone call from his mobile number
7015406371 to co-accused Dharmbir (already arrested in the
present case) on mobile number 8307419502, summoning
Dharmbir to the spot with his tractor-tanker. This fact is duly
corroborated by the Call Detail Records (DDR) and cell tower
location of the co-accused’s mobile device. Thereafter,
approximately 13 tonnes of stolen mustard oil was directly
siphoned into Dharmbir’s tractor-tanker and subsequently sold by
him. On 26.07.2026, co-accused Dharmbir brought the cash
proceeds generated from the sale of the stolen oil to present
petitioner Sombir. A total quantity of 12,320 kg of stolen mustard
oil has been recovered from Dharambiur and Dharambir had given
cash amounting of ` 15,00,000/- to present petitioner Sombir and
the same has been recovered from the present petitioner.
Furthermore, the applicant Sombir had siphoned approximately 4
tonnes of stolen oil into his own tractor-tanker; the present
petitioner Sombir, along with co-accused Ajay, went to the
residence of co-accused Ramavtar, resident of Madhi Peeran,
District Charkhi Dadri, on 20.07.2026 and sold the said oil to him
(which is substantiated by the CDR records showing the presence
of present petitioner Sombir and co-accused Ajay in the
village/residence of arrested co-accused Ramavtar on 20.07.2026).
That present petitioner Sombir received a total cash amount of
` 4,00,000/- from Ramavtar as the sale consideration for the stolen
oil. During the course of the investigation, on 10.08.2026, Kismat
S/o Med Singh, R/o Chang, proprietor of Swami Hardware, was
joined in the investigation. He disclosed that on 18.08.2026, at
approximately 8:00-9:00 PM, present petitioner Sombir and co-
accused Ajay visited his shop and purchased a small petrol engine,
a 40-foot delivery hose/pipe, wrenches, pliers, and cloth. Further,
on dated 21.08.2026, Jitender Saharan s/o Raghubir, R/o Chang,
owner of the tanker recovered in the present case (which is hitched
behind the tractor), was joined in the investigation. During
questioning, Jitender Saharan submitted an affidavit stating that on
18.07.2026, present petitioner Sombir borrowed his water tanker,







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.13 15:52
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

4
CRM CRM-M-56580 CRM CRM 56580 56580-2026 56580 2026 2026 2026

stating that he urgently required it for the night and promising to
return it cleaned after two days. Sombir himself later admitted to
having filled mustard oil into the said tanker. Copy of CDR of
present petitioner is annexed as Annexure R-4.
12. The present petitioner Sombir is the main accused in this case. The
total cash sum of ` 19,00,000/- obtained by the present petitioner
Sombir from the sale of the stolen oil is yet to be recovered.
Furthermore, the present petitioner Sombir transferred
approximately 3 to 4 tonnes of stolen oil into his second tractor-
tanker, which needs to be recovered from him, along with the
instruments/tools utilized for siphoning the oil. In this way deep
custodial interrogation of present petitioner Sombir is required. ”


Raising submission in tandem with the said reply, learned State
counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that
allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned State
counsel has further argued that investigation in the present case is still underway
and the petitioner is yet to be arrested. Given these circumstances, custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable. Learned State counsel submits that
in case the petitioner is accorded concession of anticipatory bail, there is all
likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice as also influence the
prosecution witnesses. Thus, the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to
be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone
through the available record of the case.
6. As per the prosecution case, serious allegations have been leveled
against the petitioner. Perusal of the prosecution case, the material available on
record, the reply filed by the State, as also the order whereby the petitioner’s
application for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the concerned Sessions Court,
prima facie reveals that initially, a Rapat was lodged on 19.07.2026 on the basis of
information supplied by driver Ajay, which was believed by the Manager of the
complainant-company. However, upon subsequently discovering that the mustard







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.13 15:52
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

5
CRM CRM-M-56580 CRM CRM 56580 56580-2026 56580 2026 2026 2026

oil loaded in truck No.HR-61E-1188 had been transferred into the tanker of
Jitender Saharan on 20.07.2026, the complainant, Ankul Goyal, submitted a
complaint dated 27.07.2026, alleging theft of mustard oil. During investigation, it
allegedly surfaced that the petitioner, being the owner of the truck, in connivance
with his driver Ajay, his brother Amit and others, had dishonestly transferred the
mustard oil into the tanker of Jitender Saharan and subsequently sold
approximately 15 tonnes of the same to Dharambir and Ram Avtar for ` 19 lakh.
As per prosecution version, CDR and location details, allegedly establish the
presence of the petitioner and other accused at the place of occurrence and their
continued communication with one another. It has been alleged by the prosecution
that the petitioner, in connivance with his co-accused, dishonestly misappropriated
the mustard oil belonging to the complainant-company for wrongful pecuniary
gain. Keeping in view factual milieu of the case in hand; especially seriousness &
gravity of allegations leveled against the petitioner; this Court is, prima facie , of
the opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of extraordinary
relief of anticipatory bail.
6.1. The other pleas raised by the petitioner, including those of false
implication etc., are matters to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence during the
course of trial. Such disputed questions of fact(s) cannot be conclusively
determined at the stage of consideration of the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory
bail.
6.2. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from
which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the
present FIR.
7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering plea for grant of
anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.13 15:52
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

6
CRM CRM-M-56580 CRM CRM 56580 56580-2026 56580 2026 2026 2026

rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the
magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need
for free and fair investigation as also the deeper and wider impact of such alleged
iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that
prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has
come on record and preliminary investigation appear to establish reasonable basis
for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the
petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. A
profitable reference in this regard is being made to the dicta passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court titled as State State State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri)
1039 1039, the Supreme Court held as under, relevant whereof reads as under: 1039 1039
“ 6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is
qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-
ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like
this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in
disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been
concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person
knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the
time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce
to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the
danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be
countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all
criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would
conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task
of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders. ”

8. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that keeping in
view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially seriousness &
gravity of the allegations; this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not
entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. Moreover, custodial interrogation of
the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The
petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed dismissed.
dismissed dismissed
9. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of
opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.13 15:52
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

7
CRM CRM-M-56580 CRM CRM 56580 56580-2026 56580 2026 2026 2026

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.









SUMEET GOEL)
(SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL
JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE
November 13, 2026 November 13 , 2026
November 13 November 13 , 2026 , 2026
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.13 15:52
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment