Punjab-Haryana High Court
Arun Alias Arun Mittal vs State Of Haryana on 25 March, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-3207-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-3207-2025
Reserved on: 10.03.2025
Pronounced on: 25.03.2025
Arun @ Arun Mittal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Vishwajeet, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Harpreet Kaur, A.A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Manjeet Singh, Advocate
for the complainant.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
428 13.09.2024 Jind City, District 406, 420, 506, 34 IPC
Jind
1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before
this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS],
seeking anticipatory bail.
2. In paragraph 11 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal
antecedents.
3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the status report filed by the State,
which reads as follows:
"2. That the brief facts of the case are that on the complaint of
Deepak Saini son of Mahender Saini, resident of Safidon Gate Jind,
Naveen Jain son of Sh. Surender Jain and Saurabh Jain son of Naresh
Jain, all residents of Jind case bearing FIR No. 428 dated 13.09.2024
u/s 406, 420,506,34 IPC was registered at Police Station City Jind,
inter-alia on the allegations that complainant, Naveen Jain and
Sourabh are collectively doing the business of sale and purchase of
mobile and for sometimes they were selling mobile to the applicant
Arun Mittal and by making payment in time he had won their faith.
Earlier he used to take some mobiles and all was going properly. But
from 02.12.2023 to 05.12.2023 applicant had taken mobile phones of
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-3207-2025
Rs.21,97,000/- on credit from them. Due to having faith, complainant
gave the goods on credit. Out of the said amount accused paid only
Rs. 1,47,000/- and cheated him for a sum of Rs. 20,50,000/- in
deceitful manner. Whenever they asked him for payment then he took
more time and after passing sufficient time when they asked him for
payment then he started threatening to kill and to commit suicide. In
this cheating his father Narender Mittal and her brother Karan Mittal
are also involved. Due to his cheating they came under heavy debt
and their business also ended. The complainant has been cheated by
the accused and request for taking legal action against the accused
was made."
4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions
including surrender of fire arms, if any.
5. The State's as well as counsel for the complainant oppose bail and refers to the
status report.
6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report,
which read as follows:
"13. That regarding complicity of the petitioner is concerned, it is
submitted that the allegations against the petitioner-accused are
serious in nature. The allegations against petitioner-accused are that
with effect from 02.12.2023 to 05.12.2023 he had purchased mobiles
from the complainant for amount of Rs. 21,97,000/- on credit out of
which he had paid only Rs. 1,47,000/- to the complainant and
committed cheating regarding sum of Rs. 20,50,000/- in deceitful
manner with dishonest intention. During the course of investigation of
the case, the petitioner was joined in the investigation of the case, but
the petitioner-accused has not cooperated the investigating officer in
the investigation of the case as neither he got recovered money met out
from the sale of mobile phones supplied by the complainants nor got
recovered the mobile phones purchased from the complainants.
Custodial interrogation of petitioner-accused is necessary to unearth
the true facts as well as to effect the recovery of mobile phones.
Therefore, considering the role played by the petitioner-accused and
petitioner-accused, he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, it would not be
in the interest of justice to grant concession of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner-accused."
REASONING:
7. Perusal of the pleading reflects that it is a civil dispute and there is business
relations between the complainant and the petitioner. As per para no.8 of status report, the
SHO has prepared cancellation report on 31.10.2024, however the same was not
accepted, which made the petitioner entitle for bail.
8. Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The
evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but
this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-3207-2025
anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pre-
trial incarceration.
9. Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie
analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there
would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre-trial incarceration at this
stage. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar
to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail.
This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official
webpage.
10. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the
petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail in the FIR captioned above subject to
furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a
Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa
Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court
must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.
11. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following
personal identification details:
1. AADHAR number
2. Passport number (If available) and when the
attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or
considers the accused a flight risk.
3. Mobile number (If available)
4. E-Mail id (If available)
12. This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.
13. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation within seven days of uploading
this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and
when called by the Investigator. The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioner shall join the
investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and
shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of
failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During
the investigation, the petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language,
inhuman treatment, etc.
14. In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station
arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section
prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sections mentioned above,
then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added
Jyoti Sharma section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-3207-2025
the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above; then, in that case, the
Investigator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioner notice of a minimum of seven
days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.
15. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner
indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State shall file an application for cancellation
of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.
16. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
17. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any
Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the
official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants
to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may
download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.
18. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
25.03.2025
Jyoti Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
