Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sukhjeet Singh vs State Of Haryana on 6 November, 2025

CRM-M--6599-2025                                                            1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH

210                                                CRM-M-6599-2025
                                                 Date of decision: 06.11.202
                                                                        .2025
Sukhjeet Singh
                                                           ....Petitioner
                                          V/s
State of Haryana
                                                           ....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:     Mr. Satbir Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner.
             Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.
                                         *****
SUMEET GOEL,
       GOEL J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be refer referred red as 'the BNSS')

for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR

No.286 dated 30.08.2024,, registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 120-B, 120 B, 204, 217, 218, 34, 35, 403, 406, 408, 417, 418, 420, 465,

467, 468, 471, 477, 477-A 477 of IPC at Police Station Ellenabad, Sirsa, District

Sirsa.

2. The FIR in question was registered based on the complaint

made by one Kuldeep Singh, Deputy Manager in Mahindra & Mahindra

Financial Services Ltd., Sirsa.

Sirsa. He alleged that the accused persons namely

Jitender (Executive), (Executive) Brahmpal S/o Hansraj Hansraj, Virendra Giri S/o Harisingh

Giri, Kuldeep S/o Baldev Singh, Singh Subhash @ Sher Singh @ Shera Bhadu, Bhadu

Sukhjeet Singh S/o S Mandar Singh, Baljinder Singh S/o Bhola Singh Singh, Major

Singh S/o Mahender Singh, Singh Jeet Ram S/o Girdharilal Girdharilal, Jeet Singh S/o

Balwinder Singh, in connivance with officials of the Sub Sub-Divisional Divisional

1 of 11

Magistrate (SDM) Office, Ellenabad, had hatched a criminal conspiracy racy to

cause wrongful loss to Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. and

corresponding wrongful gain to themselves by forging and using fabricated

No Objection Certificates (NOCs) to falsely show clearance of tractor loans.

It has been further alleged that the borrowers obtained tractor loans for

amounts higher than the actual value of the tractors and subsequently with

the aid of brokers and public servants, servants procured forged NOCs purportedly

issued by the Kotak Mahindra Bank instead of Mahindra & Mahi Mahindra ndra

Financial Services Ltd. These NOCs were used to cancel the hypothecation

from the vehicle records without verifying the authenticity from the

financing company. Thereafter, the aforesaid borrowers illegally sold

hypothecated tractors without repaying the loan amounts. It was further

alleged that the forged NOCs and self-declaration declaration forms were attested by

Notary Chander Rekha, Sirsa, and falsely declared that loans were taken

from and cleared with Kotak Mahindra Bank. Thereafter, statements tatements of

borrowers rs revealed they were illiterate and had been induced by accused

persons, including Sukhjeet Singh (petitioner herein) herein),, who obtained their

signatures on the blank papers after offering ₹30,000 30,000 each, under the pretext

of providing government benefits. Furthermore, ermore, tthe he SDM office, Ellenabad,

failed to verify NOCs with the financing company and the registration

records lacked official endorsements and OTP verification. Bank account

(Axis Bank A/c No. 922010063243248, in the name of Jeet Ram) showed

deposits from from Mahindra Finance which were later withdrawn by accused

Anil Lohani. Tractors bearing Nos. HR-44M/9006 44M/9006 and HR HR-44M/1847 44M/1847 were

also recovered from accused Subhash and Anil respectively. Disclosure

2 of 11

statements of Anil Lohani and Brahmpal confirmed the involve involvement ment of

Sukhjeet Singh and others in orchestrating the fraud. The investigation

establishes that the accused persons, in collusion with public officials,

fabricated NOCs and forged official records to fraudulently release

hypothecated tractors and sell them them illegally causing substantial financial

loss to Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. The role of Sukhjeet

Singh (petitioner herein) and other co-accused accused is specifically evident from

the statements of co-accused co accused and the beneficiaries of the fraud. On these set

of allegations, the FIR in question came to be registered registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the

petitioner was employed merely as a salesman with Dandiwal Tractor

Agency, Dabwali and his duties were confined solely to explaining the

features and technical aspects of tractors to prospective customers.

According to learned counsel, the petitioner has no authority or

responsibility with respect to financial dealings, documentation or any other

administrative work of the agency. Learned counsel has further iterated that

the petitioner was neither an authorized signatory nor an agency of the said

agency in any capacity. It has been further contended that the petitioner has

no concern, connection or link with the Mahindra and ZMahindra Financial

Services Ltd of the SDM office, Ellenabad and was never involved in any

financing or registration process of the the vehicles in question. Furthermore, a

bare perusal of the FIR reveals that no specific or direction allegations have

been levelled against the petitioner. The FIR merely contains a vague and

omnibus assertion that the petitioner was involved in the alle alleged ged fraud

without any supporting material linking him to the commission of the

3 of 11

offences. It has been further submitted that there is no need for custodial

interrogation of the petitioner as he is ready eady to join investigation. Moreover,

there is no likelihood likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of

justice in case he is enlarged on pre-arrest pre arrest bail. On strength of aforesaid

submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4. Per contra,, learned State counsel has referred to status report

dated 25.10.2025 by way of affidavit of Faisal Khan, IPS, Assistant

Superintendent of Police, Ellenabad and has raised submission in tandem

with the said affidavit. The relevant portion of the said affidavit reads thus:

"10. That it is also worth mentioning here that Sukhjeet Singh Present Petitioner, has given his name and Mobile Number as reference in the loan document. The borrower has to provide the names of two of his known persons as references. The Finance Company makes a call to these references ences and asks them about the borrower. When the company officials came to know about the large-scale scale fraud being done in the Sirsa Branch, they checked the loan documents of such cases. In two cases of Hardayal Singh and Satish, it was found that Sukhjeet Singh Present Petitioner, was shown as a reference. As per the process, the tele calling team of the complainant company called at that number and talked with Sukhjeet Singh regarding the loan being granted to these borrowers. Sukhjeet Singh said that he personally knows the borrowers. This contradicts the stand of the petitioner that his only duty was to make the customers aware of the features of the tractors while sitting in the tractor agency, and he had no relation of any type with the Complainant Co Company.

mpany. These two cases were also processed by co co-accused accused Jiternder. This connects Sukhjeet Singh with the co-accused accused Jitender and shows that he is a part of the Syndicate, which has committed big fraud with the Complainant Company. Customer Application for form is Annexure R-1 and R-2, 2, and Customer Mobile application form of Sukhjeet Singh, Present Present-petitioner, petitioner, Annexure R-3

11. That during the investigation, at the time of interrogation of the accused Brahmapal, Anil Lohani, and Subhash@ Shree Singh disclosed in n their disclosure statement about the involvement of Sukhjeet Singh in the crime.

4 of 11

12. That during the investigation, it also came to the knowledge of the investigation officer that an amount of Rs. One lakh was transferred from the account of accused Brahmpal hmpal to the account of Sukhjeet Singh on 19.07.2023 as commission of profit. In addition to this transaction, amounts of Rs. 43,600 and Rs. 13,000 as commission profit were also transferred by accused Brahampal in the account of co co- accused Anil Lohani on 19.07.2023 and 25.07.2023, respectively. These transactions clearly show illegal business transactions co co-accused, i.e. Jitender and Sukhjeet Singh, Present-Petitioner.

Petitioner. Bank Account Statement of the accused Brahmapal is Annexure R R-4.

13. That the disclosure ure statements of co co-accused, accused, i.e, Brahmapal, Anil Lohani. and Subhash alias Sher Singh, are corroborated with witness statements and documentary evidence obtained from the SDO(C) office and bank accounts. Copies of such statements have been placed on record reco as Annexures R-5, R-6, and R-7

14. That it is pertinent to mention here that when in compliance of this Hon'ble Courts orders Sukhjeet Singh was joined in investigation on 24.07.2025 and 22.08.2025 and when he was asked to conduct a Test identification Parad before victims/witness as to whether he is the person who played a fraud whit illiterate and innocent villager, both time he (Sukhjeet Singh) replied that he do not want to do so. When he was questioned whether he knew other co co-accused, then he replied ied that he knew them and had having friendship with them. When he was questioned as to whether he had received any amount by selling tractors with forged documents, he replied that he received nothing, but as per the received document, an amount of Rs. 100,000 0,000 was received in his bank account.

Thus, despite giving a clear answer put by the investigation officer, he again and again replied that he got Anticipatory Bail by the Hon'ble High Court. It is worth mentioning here that Sukhjeet Singh put his signat signature ure in front of every answer given by him as a token of its correctness

15. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much necessary to recover Rs 100,000 received by Sukhjeet Singh in lieu of illegal act, forged documents, to unearth the nam names es of other persons who were involved in crime, the amount in addition to Rs. One lakh which he got as commission profit and to recover the other tractors as well as to know where abouts of other co-accused accused Kuldeep and Jitender.

Jitender."

Learned State counsel has iterated that the name has

specifically come up during the investigation and in the disclosure 5 of 11

statements of co-accused.

co Learned State counsel has further iterated that the

custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to unearth the wider

conspiracy, identify other participants and recover forged documents. On

the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the instant petition is prayed

for.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have

gone through the available record of the case.

6. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Kishor Vishwasrao Patil vs. Deepak

Yashwant Patil and another passed in SLP(Crl) No.1125-2022, relevant

whereof reads as under:

"74. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the investigation intended to secure several purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts and relevant information. Grant of aanticipatory nticipatory bail may hamper the investigation. Pre-arrest arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery of relevant information.

             xxx                     xxx                    xxx                   xxx
             xxx                     xxx                    xxx                   xxx

75. Observing that the arrest is a part of the investigation intended to secure several purposes, in Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B. [Adri [Adr Dharan Das v. State of W.B., (2005) 4 SCC 303 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 933] , it was held as under : (SCC p. 313, para 19) "19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes. The accused may have to be questio questioned ned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons, if any, in the crime. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without

6 of 11

hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent his disappearance, to maintain law and orde orderr in the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest may become an inevitable part of the process of investigation. The legality of the proposed arrest cannot be gone into in an application under Section 438 of the Code. The role of the investigator is well defined and the jurisdictional scope of interference by the court in the process of investigation is limited. The court ordinarily will not interfere with the investigation of a crime or with the arrestt of the accused in a cognizable offence. An interim order restraining arrest, if passed while dealing with an application under Section 438 of the Code will amount to interference in the investigation, which hich cannot, at any rate, be done under Section 438 of the Code."

76. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514],, the Supreme Court laid down the factors and parameters to be considered while dealing with anticipatory bail. It was held that the nature and the gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehende comprehended d before arrest is made and that the court must evaluate the available material against the accused very carefully. It was also held that the court should also consider whether the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.

77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra Maharashtra,, (2011) 1 SCC 694 :

(2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] and other judg judgments ments and observing that anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar [Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC 379 : (2012) 2 SCC ((Cri) 468] , the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 386, para 19) "19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. (See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran [D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran, (2007) 4 SCC 434 :(2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 345] , State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain [State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain, (2008) 1 SCC

7 of 11

213 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 176] and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal [Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal, (2008) 13 SCC 305 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 1] .)"

Economic offences

78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain [Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2 SCC 105 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 510],, it was held that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail."

15. In Sushila Agrawal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 11,, Constitution Bench of this Court held that while considering an application for grant of pre pre-arrest arrest bail the Court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence or likelihood of fleeing justice. The Court held:

held:-

"92.4. Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations ssuch uch as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion; equally whether and if so so,, what kind of special conditions are to be imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on facts of the case, and subject to the discretion of the court."

7. As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably,

serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. The FIR ibid

reflects that name of the petitioner has emerged consistently in the

statements of co-accused co accused who have disclosed his involvement in procuring

forged documents and manipulating illiterate borrowers to facilitate

fraudulent ent loans. The forged NOCs and self self-declaration declaration forms were used to

cancel hypothecation entries without verification which has caused

substantial financial loss to the company of the complainant. The offences

alleged are serious economic offences involvin involving g criminal conspiracy, 8 of 11

cheating and forgery of official documents in which public officials and

private individuals appear to have acted in concert. The role attributed to the

petitioner cannot, at this stage, be brushed aside as merely that of a

salesman. The stand of the investigating agency before this Court is that the

custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential for tracing the flow of

funds, identifying other conspirators and recovering relevant documentary

evidence. It is settled law that while hile considering a plea for anticipatory bail, bail

the Court must keep in mind the gravity of the offence, the nature of the

allegations and the requirement of custodial interrogation. Economic

offences, being committed with deliberate design and affecting the financial ncial

integrity of institutions are to be treated as grave offences offences.

8. The investigation is at nascent stage and the recovery of crucial

documentary evidence coupled with other circumstances detailed in the

investigation points towards the active complicity of the petitioner in the

alleged offence and to defraud the complainant complainant. The nature and gravity of

the offence necessitate a thorough investigation which, at this stage, cannot

be conducted without the petitioner being in custody. Moreover, eover, no

exceptional or compelling circumstance has been demonstrated which

would warrant the grant of anticipatory bail in such a serious offence. The

petitioner, in a calculated and fraudulent manner, proceeded to defraud the

company of the complainant which is a grave and serious economic offence.

9. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for

grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding

individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to

reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to

9 of 11

the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and

wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is

no material ial 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 a reasonable basis for the accusation of the

petitioner. Thus, it is not appropriate appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the

petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective

investigation. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri)

1039],, the Supreme Suprem Court held ld as under : (SCC p.

p.189, para 6)

"6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced 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 information and also materials which would have been concealed.

led. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-

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 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 at 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.

offenders."

10. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

petitioner etitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual

milieu of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the

petitioner may be necessary to unravel the full extent of the conspiracy.

11. In view of the prevenient rati atiocination, it is directed as under: