[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jai Shankar Mishra vs State Of Haryana on 6 April, 2026
CRM-M-14770 of 2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
388 CRM-M-14770 of 2026
Date of Decision: 06.04.2026
Jai Shankar Mishra ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Present: Mr. Hemant Hans, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Sanyam Kshetarpal, Advocate
for the complainant.
*****
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the
BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR
No.559 dated 15.10.2024 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and
120-B of IPC, at Police Station Sector-8, District Faridabad.
2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner in
connivance with other co-accused impersonated as representatives of M/s
M3M India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., used documents and false e-mail
communications and induced the complainant to deploy manpower and thus
incurred financial loses to him amounting to Rs.44,11,241/-. Hence, the
present FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further
submitted that the petitioner was neither named in the FIR, nor has any
concern with the alleged fraud. It has also been contended that the petitioner
has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure
statement made by co-accused Aditya Kumar Singh that too after a gap of
more than one year from the registration of FIR, casting serious doubt on the
prosecution story. He argued that the petitioner was neither any beneficiary
to the alleged fraud as no amount was deposited in his bank account, nor he
demanded or induced the complainant or any other persons at any point of
time. He argued that if the contents of the FIR are taken to be true, even
then no specific role or overt act has been attributed to the present petitioner
and therefore, no offence of cheating in any manner has been made out
against the petitioner and mere bald and vague allegations have been
levelled against the petitioner. He further submitted that the entire case is
based on documentary evidence which are already in possession of the
complainant or the investigating agency, hence, nothing is to be recovered
from the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is
not involved in any other case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as
and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. Hence, he prays
that present petition be allowed.
4. After registration of the FIR, investigation has been initiated
and is under way. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an
application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the
Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide order
dated 05.03.2026.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status
report in the matter, which is taken on record and while referring to the
same, she has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of
anticipatory bail on the ground that the allegations levelled against the
petitioner are serious in nature. She argued that the investigation conducted
so far has revealed that the petitioner is the principal conspirator and the
main person behind the execution of the fraudulent scheme. The petitioner
had deliberately impersonated himself as 'Aditya Singh' projecting himself
as an authorized representative/official associated with M3M company,
Gurugram. It is in this assumed identity that he approached the complainant
and induced him to enter into a purported manpower supply agreement. The
petitioner was named in the FIR under the identity of 'Aditya Singh' which
was in fact the fictitious/assumed name adopted by him for carrying out the
fraud. The role attributed to him is central and active in nature. As per
investigation, the petitioner, in furtherance of pre-planned criminal
conspiracy with co-accused Pawan Kumar, co-accused Roop Kumar Singh,
was instrumental in identifying and targeting the complainant, holding
meetings, and falsely representing that manpower work would be allotted
through M3M company. The petitioner was actively involved in creation
and use of fake e-mail IDs in the name of M3M company, including
communication sent from [email protected], and in
transmitting forged work orders and documents to lend credibility to the
scheme. It has further been revealed that the petitioner played a key role in
orchestrating the entire mechanism of opening bank accounts in the names
of proposed employees, getting application forms filled and ensuring that
ATM cards and banking instruments remained under the control of the co-
accused persons. The petitioner, acting in the name of 'Aditya Singh'
participated in the recruitment process, conducted interviews, and facilitated
the on boarding of 39 individuals under false pretences of employment. The
investigation has also established that the petitioner was directly connected
with the mobile numbers and digital infrastructures used in the commission
of the offence. The mobile number 9919305555, though registered in his
real name i.e. Jai Shankar Mishra, was being used under the identity of
'Aditya Singh'. She further submitted that the petitioner is not only
peripheral participant but principal architect of the conspiracy. She further
submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for a
fair and proper investigation in the matter as well as to unearth the modus
operandi of accused; for recovery of remaining proceeds of crime,
identification of further victims well as tracing the digital and financial
evidence.. Hence, she prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant adopts the submissions
made by learned State counsel and while opposing the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner has
played an active role in the crime and, thus, does not deserve the concession
of bail.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the
material available on record, this court is of the opinion that the allegations
against the petitioner are serious in nature and he is specifically named in the
disclosure statement of co-accused Aditya Kumar Singh. The allegations
against the petitioner are serious and reveal his central and active role in the
commission of the alleged offence. The investigation conducted thus far
prima facie establishes that the petitioner was not a mere bystander but the
principal conspirator who, under a fictitious identity, orchestrated and
executed a well-planned fraudulent scheme by impersonation, creation of
forged documents, and use of fabricated digital communication channels.
The contention of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated and
named only on the basis of a disclosure statement cannot be accepted at this
stage in view of the material collected during investigation linking him with
the offence. The nature of allegations, the manner in which the offence is
stated to have been committed, and the requirement of custodial
interrogation for unearthing the complete modus operandi, recovery of
proceeds of crime, and identification of other victims and co-accused, weigh
against the petitioner. The requirement of custodial interrogation, as asserted
by the State, appears justified for unearthing the complete modus operandi,
tracing the proceeds of crime, and identifying other victims and
accomplices. The events in entirety indicate towards the existence of a
bigger syndicate indulging in dubious activities as a result of which,
innocent victims end up being preyed upon by such illusory tactics. While
considering the plea for grant of anticipatory bail, this Court is required to
consider the overall nature of offence and accusations against the accused,
the manner of occurrence, the gravity of offence and the potential impact of
granting pre-arrest protection to the petitioner, at this stage. Granting
anticipatory bail to the petitioner with such allegations, at this preliminary
stage, would not be justified as it may affect the course of fair investigation
and undermine the seriousness of the alleged act. Considering the gravity of
the allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for
effective investigation in the matter.
8. 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
the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and
wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It would be apposite
to refer herein judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'State Vs. Anil
Sharma', (1997) 7 SCC 187, wherein it has been held as under:
"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 information 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."
9. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case titled as "P.
Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement", (2019) 9 SCC 24, while
dealing with economic offences, has held that the power of anticipatory bail
should be sparingly exercised in economic offences. The relevant portion of
the judgment is reproduced as under:-
"77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and other
judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be granted
only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai Prakash Singh v.
State of Bihar, 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".
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, it was held that in
economic offences, the accuse is not entitled to anticipatory
bail.
XXX XXX XXX
83. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may
frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused
and in collecting the useful information and also the materials
which might have been concealed. Success in such
interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is
protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail,
particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the
effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said to
have been collected by the respondent Enforcement Directorate
and considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the
view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail".
10. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present petition in
the factual matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of
the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation and if it is denied, it
will leave many loose ends, which is not desired. Thus, the present petition
being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed.
11. It is made clear that nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed
to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case.
(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)
06.04.2026 JUDGE
D.Bansal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
