[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Subhash And And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 29 April, 2026

                     CRM-M--9458-2026                                                         1

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                              CHANDIGARH

                     103                                                 CRM-M-9458-2026


                     Subhash and another
                                                                                ....Petitioners

                                                           V/s

                     State of Haryana and another
                                                                                ....Respondents

                     Date of decision: 29.04.2026
                     Date of Uploading : 30.04.2026
                     CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

                     Present:      Mr. Kawalpreet Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioners.
                                   Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana.
                                   Ms. Dheerja, Advocate for respondent No.2.
                                                         *****
                     SUMEET GOEL,
                            GOEL J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner

seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest anticipatory/pre arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS,

2023 in FIR No.389 dated 03.11.2025 registered for offences punishable

under Sections 406, 420, 506 of IPC and Section 24 ooff Immigration Act,

1983 at Police Station Barauda, District Sonipat.

2. The prosecution case, as spelled out in the petition, is that the

complainant, who is stated to be suffering from cancer, was induced by the

petitioners alongwith co-accused co accused to part with a substantial amount of

approximately Rs.45.00 lacs and gold on the pretext of facilitating the

migration of his son and daughter-in-law daughter law to the United States of America. It

has been alleged that after receiving the said amount, the petitioners had

failed iled to fulfill their promise and thereafter extended false assurances

regarding repayment. It has been further alleged that in order to avoid

criminal liability, the petitioners entered into a settlement and paid only a

sum of Rs.10.00 lacs while undertaking undertaking to repay the remaining amount.

Furthermore, petitioner No.1 is stated to have executed an agreement to sell

land as security for part of the outstanding amount; however, he later resiled

from the said commitment. The complainant has further alleged that threats

were extended to him and his family when they demanded their money

back. On these set of allegations, the FIR in question was registered and

investigation ensued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioners has iterated that the

petitioners have have been falsely implicated and the present FIR is an abuse of o

process of law. Learned counsel has further iterated that an earlier

complaint on the similar allegations was inquired into and subsequently

closed on the basis of a compromise after payment of Rs.10.00 lacs which

was duly acknowledge by the complainant. It has been further contended

that the complainant has executed an affidavit acknowledging the full

settlement of dues including return of gold. Furthermore, the present

complaint has been filed filed after considerable delay with ulterior motives in

order to extract more money. According to learned counsel, in the absence

of substantive and incomplete material, the entire prosecution narrative is

nothing but an abuse of process of law. According tto o learned counsel, the

custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required in the factual milieu

of the case in hand. It has been further argued that the petitioner petitioners are

willing to fully cooperate with the investigating agency and there is no

likelihood ihood of the petitioners petitioner absconding from the process of justice or

tampering with the prosecution evidence in case they are enlarged on pre-

pre

arrest bail. On strength of these submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail

is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned rned State counsel has opposed the grant of

anticipatory bail to the petitioners petitioner by arguing that the petitioner petitioners have ve duped

the complainant in a pre-planned pre planned and calculated manner on the pretext of

sending his son and daughter-in-law abroad. Learned State counsel has

iterated that the petitioners have no intention to fulfill their promise from the

very inception and induced the complainant to part with this money.

According to learned State counsel, though a partial amount of Rs.10.00

lacs was paid but the same was only to gain the confidence of the

complainant. It has been further submitted that the investigation is at a

nascent stage and custodial interrogation of the petitioner petitioners is necessary for

recovery of the cheated amount and to unearth the complete modus operandi

adopted by them. Furthermore, learned State counsel has submitted that in

case the petitioners petitioner are granted the concession of pre pre-arrest arrest bail, at this

stage, it may impede the ongoing investigation. Accordingly, a prayer has

been made for the th dismissal of the instant petition.

4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant-respondent respondent

No.2 has raised submissions in tandem with the learned State counsel. It has

been further contended that the earlier compromise, as relied upon by the

petitioners, ioners, was obtained under false assurances and misrepresentation and

cannot absolve them of their criminal liability. Considering the gravity and

seriousness of the offence, the 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, indubitably,

serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner petitioners.. As per the

FIR, the petitioners petitioner alongwith co-accused accused took a total amount of Rs.

Rs.45.00 45.00

lacs from the complainant on the pretext of sending his son and daughter-in daughter

law abroad. From the material placed on record, it emerges that serious

allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust iinvolving nvolving a substantial

amount have been levelled against the petitioners. The allegations are not

confined to mere civil dispute or recovery of money but prima facie disclose

elements of deception and inducement leading to wrongful loss to the

complainant complainant. The sequence of events, as alleged, indicates that the

complainant was persuaded to part with a large sum of money and gold on

the assurance of sending his son and daughter daughter-in-law law abroad which promise

was never fulfilled. The subsequent conduct of the petitioners, including

partial payment, execution of undertaking and alleged resiling therefrom

prima facie indicates a pattern of misrepresentation. The plea of the

petitioner regarding earlier compromise and closure of complaint cannot be petitioners

accepted at this this stage as a ground for grant of anticipatory bail particularly

when it is the case of the prosecution that such compromise itself was

procured on false assurances. Furthermore, the authenticity/veracity of the

compromise is to be examined during the co course urse of trial. At this stage, the

investigation is still underway and the custodial interrogation of the

petitioner may be essential to recovery the cheated amount and the need to petitioners

trace the flow of money. The seriousness of the allegations, the involvement involveme

of the petitioners petitioner in inducing the complainant as also the money trail weigh

heavily against the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner petitioners. The role

attributed to the petitioners is specific and direct which indicate a well

planned economic offence. In the considered opinion of this Court, the

economic offences involving cheating of large sums stand on a different

footing and require thorough investigation.

7. It is trite law that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy

not to be granted as a matter of course, particularly in cases involving

heinous/economic /economic offences. While considering anticipatory bail, the Court

must strike a balance between the right of the individual to liberty and the

need for free, fair and effective investigation. Mor Moreover, eover, the plea that the

dispute is civil in nature cannot be accepted at this stage, as the allegations

prima facie disclose deception and dishonest intention at the inception

which constitute the essential ingredients of Section 420 of IPC/318(4) of

BNS. The investigation is ongoing and to identify the other possible accused

persons, this Court does not consider it appropriate to grant bail at this

nascent stage. In the considered opinion of this Court, granting anticipatory

bail to the petitioners petitioner at thiss stage may likely to hamper the on on-going going

investigation. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage,

from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner petitioners have been falsely

implicated into the present FIR.

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

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

individual rights and protecting societal interests. The Court ought to reckon

with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attribu attributed ted to 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 on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the

petitioner The material which has come on record and preliminary petitioners.

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 eff petitioners, effective ective

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

1039,, the Hon'ble 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 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 informati information on 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 pre-arrest arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation iin n 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 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 responsible police officers would conduct themselves in task of disintering offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.

offenders."

9. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the nature and

gravity of the allegations and the necessity of custodial interrogation for

recovery of the amount in question, this Court is of the considered opinion

that the petitioners petitioner do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the

factual milieu of the case in hand.

10. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: