[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rajesh Kumar Sanghal And Another vs State Of Haryana on 19 January, 2026

CRM-M--70355-2025                                                         1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

108                                                CRM-M-70355-2025


Rajesh Kumar Sanghal and another
                                                            ....Petitioners
                                          V/s
State of Haryana
                                                            ....Respondent
Date of decision: 19.01.2026
Date of Uploading : 19.01.2026

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:     Mr. Prateek Rathee, Advocate for the petitioners.
             Mrs. Priyanka Sadar, Sr. DAG Hry.
             Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the complainant.
                                         *****
SUMEET GOEL,
       GOEL J. (Oral)

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

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

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

No.460 dated 08.08.2025,, registered for the offences punishable under

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

District Gurugram, Haryana.

2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant company i.e. R9

Wealth India Private Limited, stated that on 06.06.2025, the accused

persons entered into an agreement with the complainant to supply 40,000

equity shares listed on the National Stock Exchange at a price of Rs.2,253/-

Rs.2,253/

per share. The total value of the transaction was Rs.9,01,20,000/ Rs.9,01,20,000/-.. In

pursuance of this understanding, the complainant company paid an amount

of Rs.20,00,000/-

Rs.20,00,000/ to the accused on 06.06.2025 as token money.

1 of 11

Subsequently, a formal deal deal note was executed on 09.06.2025 wherein the

accused again agreed to deliver 40,000 equity shares to the complainant.

After execution of the deal note, the complainant paid the balance amount of

Rs.8,81,21,000/ alongwith Rs.13,518/- towards stamp duty to the accused. Rs.8,81,21,000/-

The accused acknowledged acknowledge the receipt of the entire payment. As per the

terms of the deal, the delivery of shares was required to be completed by

13.06.2025. However, the accused failed to deliver the shares within the

stipulated time and and sought extension till 16.06.2025. Despite the extended

time, the accused did not deliver the shares. Thereafter, the complainant

sent several emails to the accused on 16.06.20256, 18.06.2025, 19.06.2025

and 20.06.2025 requesting immediate delivery of tthe he shares and

highlighting the loss of reputation and operational difficulties faced by the

complainant due to the non-delivery.

non delivery. On 21.06.2025, the accused Abhishek

Kumar Sanghal (petitioner No.2 herein), sent an email to the complainant

acknowledging receipt receipt of Rs.9,01,20,000/ Rs.9,01,20,000/-.. In the same email, he expressed

his inability to deliver the shares stating that the shares were to be sourced

from a third party namely Sneh Kirti Nagda who had allegedly cheated him

and failed to return the invested capital or deliver the shares. He further

informed the complainant the legal proceedings had already been initiated

against the said third party. The complainant stated that there was no

contractual relationship between the complainant and Sneh Kirti Nagda and

that the payment was made directly to the accused for purchase of shares. It

was further alleged that the transaction was not conditional upon

procurement of shares from any third party. According to the complainant,

the accused intentionally misled and chea cheated ted the complainant by taking

2 of 11

advantage of earlier successful transaction between the parties in order to

gain the trust of the complainant. On these allegations, the instant FIR came

to be registered and investigation ensued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has iterated that the

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

dispute arises out of a failed commercial transaction. Learned counsel has

further iterated that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the

petitioners at any stage of the transaction and the allegations in the FIR do

not disclose the commission of any criminal offence. Learned counsel has

further contended that the petitioners themselves are victims of fraud

committed by a third party namely namely Sneh Kirti Nagda from whom the shares

were to be procured.. The entire amount received from the complainant

company was transferred to the said third party for purchase of shares but he

failed to deliver the shares and misappropriated the funds. Acco According rding to

learned counsel, upon discovering the fraud, the petitioners promptly

initiated legal proceedings against him and lodged complaints with various

law-enforcement enforcement agencies even before the registration of the present FIR.

Learned counsel has further submitted that the complainant company was

fully aware that the shares were being procured through a third party

supplier and had consented to the same. Furthermore, there was no

concealment or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners and the

transactions nsactions has failed solely due to the default of the said third party which

was beyond the control of the petitioners. Learned counsel has emphasized

that the complainant has attempted to give a criminal colour to a purely civil

dispute with an intention intention to exert pressure for recovery of money. The

3 of 11

delayed registration of the FIR despite being aware of the steps taken by the

petitioners to recover the funds further casts serious doubt on the

genuineness of the allegations. A bare reading of the FIR di discloses scloses that no

prima facie case is made out against the petitioners and their names have

been roped in the FIR without any cogent basis. Learned counsel asserts that

the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is

justified only only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material

evidence. Learned counsel asserts that the petitioners are ready to join the

investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending them

behind the bars. On the basis of aforesaid submi submissions, ssions, the grant of instant

petition is entreated for.

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

anticipatory bail to the petitioners by arguing that the allegations against

them disclose the commission of serious and cognizable offe offence nce involving

large-scale scale financial fraud. Learned counsel has iterated that the

complainant company was parted with a huge sum of approximately Rs.9.00

cores on the clear representation of the petitioner that they would deliver

40,000 NSE listed equity shares shares within the agreed time line. Learned State

counsel has further submitted that the conduct of the petitioners clearly

reflects dishonest intention as the delivery timeline was repeatedly extended

without any actual delivery of shares. According to le learned arned State counsel,

the case involves serious economic offences requiring custodial

interrogation of the petitioners to trace the money trail, examine electronic

communications, identify the role of other beneficiaries and uncover the

larger conspiracy, conspiracy if any. It has further been contended that the ggrant rant of

4 of 11

anticipatory bail, at this stage, would seriously hamper the ongoing

investigation. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the

instant petition in order to facilitate effective inve investigation stigation into the alleged

offence.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant has vociferously opposed

the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners by raising submission in

tandem with the learned State counsel. He has further iterated that the plea

of the petitioners that the shares were to be sourced from a third party is an

afterthought and does not absolve them of criminal liability. Furthermore,

the complainant has no contractual relationship with the alleged third party

and the responsibility to deliver the shares rested solely upon the petitioners

who have received the funds. Thus, dismissal of the instant petition has

been prayed for.

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

gone through the available record of the ccase.

7. 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 ant anticipatory icipatory 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.



                                5 of 11



         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 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 question questioned ed 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 m material aterial facts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent his disappearance, to maintain law and order 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 arrest 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 ich 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 comprehended before arrest is made and that the court must evaluate the available material against the accused very carefully. It was als also o 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 S Satlingappa Mhetre [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra Maharashtra,, (2011) 1 SCC 694 :

6 of 11

(2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] and other judgments 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 seri serious ous 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 hass 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 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 tand 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 onstitution 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 such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while consideri considering ng whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion; equally whether and if so, what kind of special conditions are to be imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on facts of the case, and subject to the dis discretion cretion of the court."

7 of 11

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

serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner petitioners. From the

perusal of the FIR and the material available on record, it is evident that the

present case pertains to a high value financial transaction involving an

amount of approximately Rs.9.00 crores wherein the complaint company

was induced to part with money on the assurance of delivery of 40,000

equity shares listed on the National Stock E Exchange.

xchange. The execution of a

formal deal note, acknowledgement of receipt of the entire sale

consideration by the accused and the subsequent failure to deliver the shares

within the agreed timeline is not in dispute at this stage. The contention of

the petitioners titioners that the shares were to be sourced from a third party and that

they themselves were victims of fraud is a matter requiring detailed

investigation and evidence and cannot be conclusively accepted at the stage

of considering a plea for anticipatory bail. The complainant had no contract

with the said third party and the primary responsibility to deliver the shares

rested upon the petitioners who had received the entire consideration

amount. The material on record prima facie reflects that despite repeated peated

assurances and extension of time sought by the petitioners, the shares were

not delivered. The email dated 21.06.2025 sent by the petitioner No.2

wherein receipt of the entire amount of Rs.9.00 cores is admitted and

inability to deliver the shares is expressed lends prima facie support to the

prosecution version that the transaction was not honoured. The plea that the

dispute is purely civil in nature also does not inspire confidence at this stage

as the allegations disclose elements of criminality as well.. Though it is true

that the transaction arose out of commercial dealing, the allegations disclose 8 of 11

prima facie elements of dishonest inducement and misappropriat misappropriation which

cannot be brushed aside merely by saying that the dispute is civil in nature.

nature

In the considered opinion of this Court, the existence of civil remedies does

not, by itself, bar the criminal prosecution where the allegations disclose

elements of criminal and culpable conduct beyond a mere civil dispute dispute. The

allegations in the FIR and and the material collected during the course of

investigation prima facie disclose an offence of cheating and criminal

conspiracy in which the role of the present petitioners is under investigation.

In the considered opinion of this Court, granting anticipatory tory bail to the

petitioners at this stage, would hamper the ongoing investigation and petitioners,

impede the recovery of material evidence. The stand of the investigating

agency before this Court is that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners

is necessary to trace the money trail, examining the electronic and

documentary evidence and ascertaining/ ascertaining/identifying other co-accused who

may be involved in the transaction.

transaction At the stage of considering the plea for

anticipatory bail, the Court is not to evaluate the evi evidence dence but only to see

whether prima facie allegations disclose a serious offence. In the

considered opinion of this Court, granting anticipatory bail at this stage may

likely to hamper the ongoing investigation.

9. It is trite law that the anticipatory bbail ail is an extraordinary

remedy and is to be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the

Court is satisfied that the petitioners have been falsely implicated and that

custodial interrogation is not required. Furthermore, it is also well settled

that in offences of such a nature, nature, the Court is required to strike a balance

between the personal liberty of the accused and the larger societal interest.

9 of 11

Therefore, individuals involved in such organized deceit must be dealt

firmly and in accordance with the law, leaving no room for leniency.

Considering the nature of allegations, possibility of involvement of multiple

persons and to uncover the broader conspiracy, if any, behind the

occurrence coupled with the role of the petitioners, it is not appropriate to t

grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners at this nascent stage stage. No cause nay

plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be

deciphered that the petitioners petitioner have been falsely implicated into the present

FIR.

10. 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 rrole ole 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

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

investigation, appear to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations.

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

would necessarily cause impediment impediment in effective investigation. In State v.

Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 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 informations and also

10 of 11

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 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 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."

11. In view of the gravity of the allegations, the manner in which

the complainant complainant was allegedly induced to part with a substantial sum of

money and the prima facie material available on record as also the necessity

of custodial interrogation for a fair and thorough investigation, this Court is

of the considered opinion that the petitioner petitioners do not deserve the concession

of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand.

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