Jaspreet Singh vs State Of Haryana
2025 Latest Caselaw 6459 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jaspreet Singh vs State Of Haryana on 19 December, 2025

CRM-M-61355-2025 (O&M)                                                          -1-


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH
                              ****

279                                             CRM-M-61355-2025 (O&M)
                                                Date of Decision : 19.12.2025

JASPREET SINGH
                                                                        ...Petitioner
                                       VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA
                                                                      ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY

Present:    Mr. Sajiv Kumar Yadav, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Vishal Singh, AAG, Haryana.

            ****

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (ORAL)

CRM-50924-2025

This is an application filed under Section 528 BNSS to place on

record, 'email' dated 13.09.2025, Bank account statements of applicant-petitioner

from 2018 to 2025, notification dated 31.03.2014, along with other documents as

Annexures P-21 to P-25.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed,

subject to all just exceptions. Annexures P-21 to P-25 are taken on record.

CRM-M-61355-2025

1. This petition for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS,

has been filed by petitioner, an accused in case bearing FIR No.369 dated

16.11.2024 registered against him at Police Station Faridabad Central, District

Faridabad, for the commission of offences punishable u/s 420, 120-B IPC and

1 of 10

CRM-M-61355-2025 (O&M) -2-

Sections 3, 4, 5 of Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial

Establishment Act.

2. Relevant facts as can be inferred from the documents on record are

noticed hereinbelow:-

Criminal proceedings in the present case were initiated against

Directors, share holders, various signatories of WTC Faridabad Infrastructure

Development Pvt. Ltd., by group of aggrieved investors, alleging therein that the

company engaged in development and sale of residential plots in Sectors 111 and

114 of Faridabad, through its Directors had induced them to part with their hard

earned money under various Collaborations and Booking Agreements, assuring

them that plots measuring 110 to 160 square yards would be allotted within a

period of 24 months. It was further agreed that in case, the Company failed to

deliver the plots within the stipulated period, the invested money would be

returned along with interest. To gain confidence of investors, WTC, Faridabad

issued post-dated cheques to them (investors) towards refund. It has further been

alleged that the Company failed to adhere to their contractual obligations and

when the cheques were presented for engagement most of them were dishonoured

with the remarks "Insufficient funds/payment stopped by drawer". Complainant

also alleged that all the cheques collected from investors were deposited in

Faridabad's HDFC Bank accounts and the post-dated cheques were drawn on

Axis Bank. Surprisingly enough, even when the cheques were being dishonoured

the Company restrained the investors from approaching bank.

Several Directors and officials of the Company were specifically

named by the investors as being responsible for this calculated fraud on them.

They being Sherif Muin Khan, Bhavarpal Kashyap, Dhananjay Kumar Sarkar,

2 of 10

CRM-M-61355-2025 (O&M) -3-

Ashish Kumar Dey and Jaspreet Singh (present petitioner). It was further

mentioned in the complaint that WTC Noida Development Company Private Ltd.

held 99.99% of the share holding in WTC Faridabad, and the nominee

shareholders were Amit Goyal, Vikas Verma and Jaspreet Singh (petitioner). It is

further the allegation of complainants that various Group of Companies

including WTC Noida and Bhutani Infra Group entered into revenue sharing

arrangements and jointly defrauded investors collecting funds under the pretext

of development of plots in Faridabad. Complainants also claimed that while the

dispute between them and the group of Companies were going on, the same land

was remarketed and pre-launched through Bhutani Infrastructure Group at a

much higher rate of about Rs.55,000/- per square yard, which indicates intention

on the part of the Company officials to cheat the investors and to unjustly enrich

them.

On the receipt of complaint dated 16.10.2024. Preliminary enquiry

was conducted by the police officials. Finding substance in the allegations

levelled by the complainants/investors, a formal case vide FIR No.369 dated

16.11.2024, u/s 420, 120-B IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 of HPID FE Act, was

registered.

3. Apprehending his arrest, present petitioner had moved an application

for grant of pre-arrest bail. The same was dismissed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Faridabad, in terms of order dated 13.10.2025.

Aggrieved of which, present petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised many fold submissions:-

Firstly, it has been contended that petitioner, a Company Secretary,

joined WTC Noida Development Company Pvt. Ltd. (in short 'WTC Noida') on

3 of 10

CRM-M-61355-2025 (O&M) -4-

06.08.2018 as Deputy General Manager (Corporate Compliance). As per terms

and conditions of his employment, he was required to hold the position of 'Non-

Executive Director' in WTC Faridabad. During his tenure, the Company was only

engaged in acquiring land and was not collecting any funds from public. He

resigned on 16.11.2021 and approximately a month thereafter, the company filed

financial statements indicating receipt of funds from various investors under the

Collaboration Agreements. These matters were never placed before the Board of

Directors during the tenure of petitioner, who therefore had no knowledge of the

same.

Secondly, learned counsel submits that post retirement, petitioner has

not in any which way been associated with WTC group. Moreover, during the

period he remained Company Secretary of WTC Noida, he only received his

salary and nominal sitting fees, he never remained involved in day-to-day

operations, nor was a signatory to the bank account neither did he execute any

Collaboration Agreement, his holding of one equity share in WTC Faridabad was

purely as a nominee shareholder of WTC Noida that too, to only meet the

statutory requirements of two share holders.

Learned counsel next contends that after receiving summons from the

Serious Fraud Investigation Office, New Delhi, petitioner appeared before the

concerned authorities, as also before the Investigating Officer and submitted all

his account statements beginning from 2008 till 2025, which when perused

endorse his stand that he did not receive any illegal gratification from WTC

Faridabad and WTC Noida. Thus, in crux the submission of learned counsel is

that the allegations of fraud levelled in multiple FIRs against petitioner are

absolutely incorrect, petitioner was never involved in day-to-day affairs of the

4 of 10

CRM-M-61355-2025 (O&M) -5-

Company, he was merely an employee and was being paid salary. That apart, the

presence of the petitioner is not needed for custodial interrogation as nothing is to

be recovered from him, all the documents have already been handed over by him

to the investigating agencies. Nonetheless, he is still ready and willing to join the

investigations as and when called for by the Investigating Officer.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of

anticipatory bail by referring to the Status Report dated 15.11.2025 by way of

affidavit of Mr. Narender Kumar, Assistant Commissioner of Police, EWO,

Faridabad, filed on behalf of respondent-State. In para 7 thereof, it has been

mentioned that the investigations conducted till date reveal that the present

petitioner along with others namely, Dhanajay Kumar Sarkar, Asish Bhalla, Sharif

Muin Khan (all of whom are in custody) was actively involved in day-to-day

affairs of the company and its policy decision making. All the accused including

the petitioner, as the initial investigations reveal, carried out extensive

promotional campaigns through brouchurers hoardings, Social Media etc. to lure

investors, assuring them to allot residential plots measuring 110 to 160 square

yards, within a period of 24 months. Under this guise, they collected huge amount

of money.

Learned State counsel further contends that documents collected

during the course of investigation also reveal that Current Bank account bearing

No.5920000000480 was opened in the HDFC Bank in the name of WTC

Faridabad with the signatures of present petitioner and others, who were

Directors. This account was opened in January, 2021 to collect investments from

general public. Subsequently, in a Board Resolution, Ashish Bhalla was made

99.99% financial beneficiary of the Company. Rs.244 crores were collected from

5 of 10

CRM-M-61355-2025 (O&M) -6-

approximately 2200 investors and the money was deposited in the aforesaid

account, which later was transferred. Further, as per learned State counsel, the

plea taken by the petitioner that he was merely a 'Non-Executive Director' is

wholly misconceived and untenable, for he remained actively involved in the

affairs of the Company from November 2018 to November 2021. His resignation

was finally accepted in April 2022. During this period, the fund of investors were

collected and diverted, his role cannot be termed as ornamental or nominal.

It is further the submission of learned State counsel that granting the

concession of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioner, at a stage when

investigations are still going on would seriously prejudice the investigation,

moreso when his (P's) presence is needed to unearth the money trail, identify the

other beneficiaries of diverted funds etc. Primarily on these submissions learned

counsel contends that petitioner has failed to make out a case of exceptional

depravity/hardship in his favour, for grant of this extraordinary relief of pre-arrest

bail. Dismissal of the application has been prayed for.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents available on record.

7. Before expressing any opinion on the submissions raised by learned

counsel of the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to certain judgments of

Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein the factors to be kept in mind while dealing

with an application for grant of anticipatory bail, have been discussed.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in "P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of

Enforcement, ((2020) 13 SCC 791), has observed as under:-

"67. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C 1973 is an

6 of 10

CRM-M-61355-2025 (O&M) -7-

extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of the pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy."

Hon'ble the Supreme Court while deciding the case titled as "Ms. X

Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another", (2023 SCC Online SC 279) held as

under:-

"11.1. We propose to take a quick look at the considerations that ought to govern grant of anticipatory bail. There are a line of decisions of this court that have underscored the fact that while deciding an application for bail, the court ought to refrain from undertaking a detailed analysis of the evidence, the focus being on the prima facie issues including consideration of some reasonable grounds that would go to show if the accused has committed the offence or those facts that would reflect on the seriousness of the offence. The self-imposed restraint on delving deep into the analysis of the evidence at that stage is for valid reasons, namely, to prevent any prejudice to the case set up by the prosecution or the defence likely to be taken by the accused and to keep all aspects of the matter open till the trial is concluded.

12. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar's case (supra) (Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashish Chatterjee and another), a Division Bench of this Court had highlighted the factors that ought to be borne in mind

7 of 10

CRM-M-61355-2025 (O&M) -8-

while considering the anticipatory bail application and had stated that :-

"9. We are of the opinion that the impugned order is clearly unsustainable. It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii)severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv)danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail."

In "Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav vs. The

State of Maharashtra and another" (2025 AIR SC 3375), the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that "Anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and ought not to be

granted in a routine manner."

Factual aspects of the case leading to the lodging of the FIR have

already been noted in para 2 of the order. Admittedly, multiple FIRs (26) were

registered all across the State, on the complaints made by various investors, who

alleged that calculated fraud has been played on them by Directors, shareholders,

authorized signatories of WTC Faridabad Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd, by

inducing them to spend their hard earned money under various Collaboration and

8 of 10

CRM-M-61355-2025 (O&M) -9-

Booking Agreements, assuring them that they would be allotted plots within a

particular time frame, as also that in case, the company fails to handover

possession, the entire amount so invested would be returned back along with

interest. It has also been noticed that the name of the petitioner specifically

figured in the FIR, along with other accused, namely, Dhananjay Kumar Sarkar,

Sharif Mujin Khan, Ashish Kumar Dey, Ashish Bhalla (all of whom are in

custody).

The role of the petitioner has been highlighted in para 7 of the Status

Report, Investigating Officer also found out that petitioner and few others had

opened a current bank account bearing No. 5920000000480 in the HDFC Bank in

the name of 'WTC Faridabad', wherein the investors were asked to deposit

money. In all Company collected about Rs.244 crores from 2200 investors.

Investigations conducted till date reveal that later the said amount was diverted. It

has further come in the investigation that during the period, petitioner remained as

a Director, several persons invested their hard earned money and deposited the

same in the aforesaid bank. The fact that petitioner being the Company Secretary

used to sign the annual balance sheets and was an authorized signatory to the

Company's bank account, itself suggests, at least at this stage, that he was not

merely a Non-Executive Director but played crucial role in the policy making and

financial decisions. The status report filed by respondent-State also goes to show

that out of 09 licences applied for by WTC Faridabad Infrastructure Development

Pvt. Ltd., only two licences were granted by the Town and Country Planning

Department, Haryana. The others were later withdrawn. Fines were also imposed

for violation of law and relevant regulations regulations. It has also been noticed

that investigations are still underway to ascertain the complete trail of financial

9 of 10

CRM-M-61355-2025 (O&M) -10-

transactions involved, as also to unearth the entire conspiracy, to find out the

whereabouts of who all are involved etc. and how many other persons apart from

complainant have been defrauded etc. Thus, custodial interrogation of petitioner

is necessary.

In view of above, the Court is of the opinion that petitioner has not

been able to make out a case of exceptional depravity/hardship in his favour,

entitling him for the grant of this extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.

Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.

                                                         (AARADHNA SAWHNEY)
                                                               JUDGE
19.12.2025
Nisha Yadav

                Whether Speaking/reasoned       Yes/No
                Whether Reportable              Yes/No




                                            10 of 10