[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sumit Jangra vs State Of Haryana on 21 April, 2026
CRM-
CRM-M-18235-
18235-2026
1
103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM- 18235-2026
CRM-M-18235-
Sumit Jangra
....Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana
....Respondent
Date of Decision: April 21,
21, 2026
2026
Date of Uploading: April 21,
21, 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:
Present Mr. Ajit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
petitioner.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.
Mr. Ashish Gupta,, Advocate for the complainant.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL, J. (Oral)
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the BNSS') for
grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory
arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner
petitioner, in case bearing FIR
No.49 dated 17.02.2026,
17.02 registered for the offences punishable under Sectionss
318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023, at Police
Station Udyog Vihar, Gurugram.
2. The gravamen of allegations against the petitioner is that on
22.01.2026, the complainant, Sanjay Kumar, Authorized Representative and
Director of Security of Radisson Hotel, Udyog Vihar, Gurugram, submitted a
written complaint alleging financial fraud, criminal misappropriation of hotel
authenticity of this order/ judgment
CRM-
CRM-M-18235-
18235-2026
funds, falsification of accounts, and criminal conspiracy by co-accused
Harleen Kaur, a Sales Executive of the hotel, in collusion with Sumit Jangra
(petitioner herein), a former employee. It was further alleged that during an
internal audit and revenue reconciliation of events held in late 2025 and early
2026, significant discrepancies were detected in guest payments, advances,
and billing records. Upon inquiry by the hotel's Income Auditor and Credit
Manager, it was revealed that guest advances had been fraudulently adjusted
against unrelated departure payments, fake and fabricated invoices were
generated and provided to guests, payments were dishonestly routed through
PM accounts, and substantial cash collections were misappropriated and
never deposited with the hotel.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that bare perusal
of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are
concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further
iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in
question. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner had already
resigned from the Radisson Hotel, and the alleged transactions were
discovered much after his resignation. Learned counsel has argued that the
petitioner has been implicated just because of some telephonic conversations
with the co-accused, namely, Harleen Kaur and the same does not establish
involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. Learned counsel has
submitted that financial fraud and misappropriation of accounts is alleged
against the said co-accused - Harleen Kaur. Learned counsel has argued that
the petitioner has nothing to do with the offence in question. Learned counsel
has submitted that alleged transactions, as mentioned in the bank statement of
authenticity of this order/ judgment
CRM-
CRM-M-18235-
18235-2026
the petitioner, between him and the co-accused pertain to personal
transactions relating to day to day expenses since they were sharing a rented
accommodation at Gurugram. Learned counsel has submitted that the
petitioner joined the preliminary inquiry before the Investigating Officer and
fully cooperated therein; thus, there is no apprehension of the petitioner
absconding or interfering with the prosecution evidence.
3.1. Learned counsel asserts that the police have not conducted a fair
and impartial investigation and the inquiry conducted so far is not only
incomplete but also tainted with bias. Moreover, the custodial interrogation
should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely
necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Learned counsel has argued
that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner
is ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served
by sending him behind the bars. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of
anticipatory bail is entreated for.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel, while referring to the status
report by way of an affidavit dated 13/15.04.2026, which is already on record,
has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the
offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. Relevant of the said
status report reads thus:
"9. ROLE OF THE PETITIONER:
PETITIONER
That in so far as the role of the petitioner is concerned, it is
submitted that the petitioner had played an active role in the commission of
the present crime. Upon investigation, it was found-out that he acted in
active connivance and pursuant to a pre-planned criminal conspiracy with
co-accused Harleen Kaur. It is evident that the petitioner facilitated the
fraudulent scheme by visiting hotel guests and collecting cash payments on
behalf of the hotel, which were never deposited in official accounts, and
further impersonated himself as the hotel accountant to address and
suppress guest complaints. He knowingly assisted in the generation and
circulation of fake receipts and invoices, thereby aiding in the concealment
of the misappropriation of funds. His continuous coordination with the co-
authenticity of this order/ judgment
CRM-
CRM-M-18235-
18235-2026
accused and active participation in unauthorized handling of guest payments
and diversion of hotel revenue clearly establish his deliberate, conscious,
and integral role in the systematic execution of financial fraud, resulting in
substantial wrongful loss to the complainant establishment."
4.1. Learned State counsel has also iterated that the allegations
against the petitioner are specific and direct. Given the severity of the offence
regarding dishonestly cheating, there exists a substantial likelihood that the
petitioner may abscond or tamper with the evidence, if he is enlarged on bail.
On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition in hand is
entreated for.
4.2. Learned counsel for the complainant, while raising submissions
in tandem with the submissions of learned State counsel, has also vehemently
opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the
allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned
counsel has submitted that the petitioner along with his co-accused has played
financial fraud, resulting in substantial wrongful loss to the complainant.
Learned counsel has submitted that, in case, the petitioner is granted the
concession of anticipatory bail, there is all likelihood that the petitioner may
abscond from the process of justice as also interfere/ intimidate the
prosecution witnesses/ evidence. On the strength of these submissions,
dismissal of the petition in hand is entreated for.
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 case put forth in the FIR in question, the allegations
against the petitioner are serious in nature. As per the prosecution case and
upon perusal of the status report dated 13/15.04.2026, as well as the order
dated 25.03.2026 passed by the Court below declining anticipatory bail to the
authenticity of this order/ judgment
CRM-
CRM-M-18235-
18235-2026
petitioner, it emerges that during the course of investigation, co-accused
Harleen Kaur was acting in active connivance and criminal conspiracy with
the petitioner, who had earlier been employed at the same hotel and had left
his job approximately one year prior to the incident. It was revealed that
whenever guests approached the hotel for booking rooms or banquet halls for
weddings or parties, co-accused - Harleen Kaur, in her capacity as Sales
Executive, dealt with them. In cases where payments were made online, the
amounts were duly deposited with the accounts department and recorded in
the ledger. However, when payments were made in cash, Harleen Kaur
allegedly retained the cash and issued fake receipts to the guests. It further
emerged that she provided the mobile number 9319968268 to guests via
email, and the petitioner would visit the guests to collect cash. In case of any
complaints, the petitioner would contact the guests from the said number,
impersonating himself as the hotel accountant, and address their concerns. At
the time of events, Harleen Kaur would manipulate the ledger by adjusting
payments of one guest against another to ensure that events proceeded
smoothly and the fraud remained undetected. In this manner, both accused, in
collusion with each other, dishonestly collected booking amounts from hotel
guests, misappropriated the funds, and caused wrongful loss to the
complainant hotel amounting to several lakhs of rupees.
6.1. In view of the material on record, the petitioner appears to have
played an active and key role in a well-planned conspiracy with co-accused
Harleen Kaur in committing financial fraud and misappropriation of hotel
funds. The allegations, prima facie, reveal a systematic modus operandi
involving collection of cash from guests, issuance of fake receipts,
authenticity of this order/ judgment
CRM-
CRM-M-18235-
18235-2026
impersonation as a hotel official, and manipulation of accounts to conceal the
fraud, thereby causing substantial wrongful loss to the complainant hotel.
7. The petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR. 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.
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 is imperative that every
person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear
of any transgression. 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 be established a
reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in
Sharma,, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997
effective investigation. In State v. Anil Sharma
SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6)
"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
authenticity of this order/ judgment
CRM-
CRM-M-18235-
18235-2026
themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of
disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."
9. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, this Court finds no
compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the
petitioner. 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
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of
opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
April 21,
21, 2026
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
authenticity of this order/ judgment
