[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Anant Kumar And Another vs State Of Haryana on 29 April, 2026

                     CRM-M--17-2026                                                          1




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                              CHANDIGARH

                     152                                              CRM-M-17-2026


                     Anant Kumar and another                                   ....Petitioners

                                                          V/s
                     State of Haryana                                          ....Respondent

                     Date of decision: 29.04.2026
                     Date of Uploading : 30.04.2026

                     CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
                     Present:      Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Senior Advocate with
                                   Mr. Nitin Thatai, Advocate and
                                   Ms. Seerat Saldi, Advocate for the petitioners.
                                   Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.
                                                         *****
                     SUMEET GOEL,
                            GOEL J. (Oral)

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

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

2023 in FIR No.195 No. dated 22.12.2025 registered for offences punishable

under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61 of BNS, 2023 at Police Station

Sector 7, Panchkula.

Panchkula

2. The prosecution case, as emanating from the FIR, is that the

complainant, namely Dr. Karan Gupta, a dental surgeon by profession, professi

alleged that his daughter, who aspired to pursue an MBBS course, could

not secure admission through NEET-2024.

NEET 2024. In August 2024, through his

co-brother brother Pallav Bansal, the complainant came into contact with the

main accused, namely Manav Singla, who allegedly assured him of

2026.04.30 09:58 arranging a management quota seat in a private medical college. It has

been alleged that the main accused initially received a sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- in cash as token money and thereafter induced the

complainant to part with further amounts, including Rs.2,00,000/- towards

participation in counselling. Despite repeated assurances, no admission

materialized in the initial rounds. Thereafter, on 27.11.2024, the

complainant was allegedly introduced to the present petitioners at

Panchkula, who represented themselves as having strong connections with

the Directorate of Medical Education and Research (DMER), Haryana. It

is further alleged that a deal for securing an MBBS seat was finalized for

a total consideration of Rs.1.27 crores, pursuant to which an additional

amount of Rs.32,00,000/- was paid by the complainant. It has been further

alleged that despite receipt of the aforesaid amounts, the daughter of the

complainant did not secure admission, and only a part of the amount was

subsequently returned, while a substantial amount remained outstanding.

The complainant has further alleged that when he approached the accused

persons for return of the remaining amount, he was threatened with dire

consequences. In this manner, the complainant was duped of the huge

amount and the allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust and

threats were levelled which led to registration of the instant FIR.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have contended

that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the FIR in question and

no specific role has been attributed to them in the alleged transaction.

Learned senior counsel has further submitted that neither any money was

demanded nor received by the petitioners and that the entire dispute, if

any, is between the complainant and the main accused, namely Manav

Singla. According to learned senior counsel, the petitioners are merely

consultants assisting in admission processes and have no role whatsoever

in any alleged fraudulent transaction. It has been further contended that

the FIR is an abuse of the criminal process, having been instituted to exert

pressure for recovery of money arising out of what is essentially a civil

dispute. Reliance has been placed upon an inquiry conducted at Faridkot,

wherein no concrete evidence was found indicating any payment having

been made to the petitioners. Learned senior counsel has also emphasized

that the complainant has failed to disclose or substantiate the source of the

alleged funds, thereby casting serious doubt on the veracity of the

prosecution case. It has further been contended that the daughter of the

complainant has already secured admission in a medical college, and thus,

the dispute, if any, pertains only to settlement of accounts between the

complainant and the main accused. It has been further submitted that the

petitioners have neither misappropriated any amount nor acted with any

dishonest intention from the inception of the transaction. Learned senior

counsel has further asserted that the complainant had earlier approached

various authorities, including those at Faridkot, Police Station

Chandimandir, but no action was taken, which, according to the

petitioners, reflects mala fide intent on the part of the complainant. It has

been further contended that the present FIR has been registered without

proper justification and without due consideration of the material

collected during earlier inquiries. It has also been submitted that the

petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigating

agency, and there is no likelihood of their absconding or tampering with

the prosecution evidence in the event they are granted the concession of

anticipatory bail. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, grant of

anticipatory bail to the petitioners has been prayed for.

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

anticipatory bail to the petitioners, contending that the allegations against

them are serious in nature. According to learned State counsel, the

complainant was dishonestly induced to part with a substantial amount of

money on the false promise of securing an MBBS seat for his daughter

through the management quota. It has been submitted that the allegations

are not merely of a simple monetary dispute but prima facie disclose the

commission of cognizable and grave offences involving cheating,

criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy. It has further been

contended that the petitioners, in connivance with co-accused Manav

Singla, have played an active role in the commission of the alleged

offence. Learned State counsel has further argued that the petitioners

cannot escape liability merely on the ground that no amount was directly

received by them. It has been contended that the petitioners have actively

participated in the alleged transaction and facilitated the commission of

the offence, and therefore, their custodial interrogation is indispensable to

unearth the larger conspiracy, identify the role of other involved persons

and effect recovery of the cheated amount. It has also been submitted that

economic offences of such magnitude have a serious impact on society at

large and warrant a thorough and effective investigation. Learned State

counsel has apprehended that in case the petitioners are granted the

concession of anticipatory bail at this stage, the same may hamper the

ongoing investigation. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions,

dismissal of the present petition has been prayed 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 and grave allegations have been levelled against the petitioners.

The allegations in the present case are not vague in nature but prima facie

disclose a coordinated and concerted effort on the part of the accused

persons, including the petitioners, to induce the complainant into parting

with a substantial amount of money on the false pretext of securing

admission to an MBBS course for his daughter. From the material

collected during the course of inquiry and investigation, it emerges that

the petitioners were introduced to the complainant by the main accused,

Manav Singla, and are alleged to have projected themselves as persons

having influence and connections with the Directorate of Medical

Education and Research (DMER), Haryana, thereby defrauding the

complainant of a substantial amount on the promise of securing a medical

seat. Furthermore, the presence of the petitioners at the meeting dated

27.11.2024, where the alleged deal was finalized, and their role in

representing that they could secure a management quota seat, prima facie

indicate their active participation in the transaction. The plea of the

petitioners that no money has been directly received by them does not, at

this stage, ipso facto exonerate them from liability. In the considered

opinion of this Court, in cases involving conspiracy and cheating, the role

of each participant is to be examined in the overall context of the

transaction. The material on record suggests that the petitioners have

allegedly facilitated the transaction, which constitutes a significant role in

the inducement of the complainant. The magnitude of the amount

involved and the manner in which the transaction is alleged to have been

executed prima facie indicate that the offence is not isolated but forms

part of a larger, organized and premeditated design. The plea raised by the

petitioners regarding prior inquiries and absence of documentary proof at

this stage does not dilute the seriousness of the allegations. The

investigation is still ongoing and the exact money trail, as well as the

precise role of each accused, is yet to be conclusively determined. The

stand of the investigating agency before this Court is that custodial

interrogation of the petitioners is indispensable to unearth the full extent

of the conspiracy and to identify the involvement of other persons. In

view of the seriousness of the allegations and the prima facie material on

record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners do not

deserve the concession of anticipatory bail at this stage.

7. The plea of the petitioners that the matter is purely civil in

nature also does not persuade this Court at this stage. 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 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. The allegations involve a well planned conspiracy

whereby complainant was defrauded of his valuable money, 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 at this stage may likely to hamper the on-going investigation.

No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it

can be deciphered that the petitioners have been falsely implicated into

the FIR in question.

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 interests. 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. At

this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is

not made out against the petitioners. 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 petitioners, as it would necessarily cause

impediment in effective 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 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 themselves in task of disintering offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."

9. Considering the gravity of the offence, the magnitude of

alleged fraud, the conduct of the petitioners and the stage of investigation

as also the necessity of custodial interrogation to unearth the complete

modus operandi, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

petitioners 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: