Afjal Hoque Sarkar vs State Of Haryana
2026 Latest Caselaw 411 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Afjal Hoque Sarkar vs State Of Haryana on 20 January, 2026

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH




106
CRM-M-2848-2026

Afjal Hoque Sarkar                                    ......Petitioner(s)

                                        Versus
State of Haryana                                      ......Respondent(s)

Decided on : 20.01.2026
Date of uploading: 21.01.2026

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:     Mr. Karanvir Singh Khehar, Advocate for the petitioner.
             Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG, Haryana.
             Mr. R.S. Randhawa, Senior Advocate with
             Ms. Tarranum Madan, Advocate for the complainant.

                                 *****
SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. 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 bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR

No.50 dated 26.02.2025, registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, at Police Station Khawaja,

District Faridabad.

2. The gravamen of the FIR reflects that it has been registered on

the written complaint of Sunil Mehra, Director of M/s Campari Export Pvt.

Ltd., a Government-recognised Star Export House engaged in manufacturing

activities at Faridabad and in existence since 1989. It is alleged that in

August/September 2023, one K.B. Kumar, a garment manufacturer and

buying agent, approached the complainant and introduced him to the

accused Kunwar Abhilesh Singh, who represented himself to be an IAS

1 of 9

CRM-M-2848-2026 Page |2

officer. On the strength of his purported influence and connections with

senior Government officials, the accused induced the complainant to procure

Government tenders for supply of school uniforms and allied works, initially

demanding a sum of ₹27 lakh.

Acting on such inducement, the complainant is alleged to have

transferred a total amount of ₹1.87 crore to Kunwar Abhilesh Singh through

various transactions. However, no Government tender was procured, and

after repeated persuasion, an amount of ₹1 crore was allegedly returned on

11.01.2024. It is further alleged that thereafter the complainant was again

induced and introduced to another accused, namely K. Shailendra Pratap

Singh, who claimed himself to be a Minister and Council Secretary of the

Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC), Assam. He allegedly assured that

though the school uniform order would be placed later, substantial orders

would be issued for (i) digital whiteboards for Government schools in BTC,

(ii) ESE lightning arrestors for Government buildings in BTC, and (iii)

Thalassemia tests for the BTC Council, collectively involving projects worth

several hundred crores. On such representations, the complainant company

is alleged to have further transferred an amount of ₹5.51 crore to K.

Shailendra Pratap Singh through various bank transactions towards BTC

expenses, registration charges, service charges and procurement of material.

It is alleged that the accused thereafter sent original copies of letters of intent

through courier in respect of the aforesaid projects. However, despite receipt

of the said letters of intent, no work orders were issued. After prolonged

follow-up, submission of reports and samples to BTC at the behest of the

accused, the complainant's suspicion arose and upon meeting the Hon'ble

Chief Executive Member of BTC, it was disclosed that the letters of intent

2 of 9

CRM-M-2848-2026 Page |3

were fake. In this manner, it is alleged that the accused, in furtherance of

their common intention, by misrepresentation and deception, cheated the

complainant company to the tune of ₹6.18 crore. Upon these set of

allegations, the instant FIR was registered against the accused persons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

had no prior personal acquaintance with the co-accused before the alleged

engagement and had no dealings whatsoever with any representative of the

complainant company. It is further contended that the petitioner had no

knowledge of any alleged criminal intent or activities attributed to the other

accused persons. According to learned counsel, the petitioner's role, if any,

is strictly confined to rendering professional services by conducting a ground

survey. Learned counsel has further argued that there is no specific or direct

allegation against the petitioner which would justify his arrest or warrant

custodial interrogation. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are

stated to be wholly vague, unsubstantiated and unsupported by any material

evidence so as to connect him with the alleged offence. It is asserted that the

petitioner acted bona fide, in a transparent manner, and his involvement was

limited to submission of a professional survey report. It is further submitted

that the petitioner has maintained complete transparency in all financial

transactions, as is evident from the bank statements already placed on

record. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has clean antecedents.

Learned counsel asserts that the in the instant case, the FIR fails to include

material facts, which further raised questions about its credibility and

fairness. 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. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to join

3 of 9

CRM-M-2848-2026 Page |4

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

him behind the bars. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel that the

present petition be allowed and the petitioner be granted the concession of

the anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the

grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, contending that the allegations

levelled against him are grave and serious in nature. Learned State Counsel

submits that there are specific and categorical allegations that the petitioner,

in connivance with the co-accused, cheated the complainant to the tune of

₹6.5 crore on the pretext of procuring Government work orders for supply of

material. It is further contended that out of the said amount, some amounts

had been credited into the bank account of the petitioner, which clearly

establishes his active involvement in the alleged fraud. The investigation

qua the FIR in question is still ongoing and recovery of alleged weapon is to

be effected from the petitioner. Learned State counsel has iterated that the

custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative for the purpose of

effective and fair investigation and to unearth the case of the prosecution.

According to learned State counsel, in case the petitioner is granted the

concession of pre-arrest, at this stage, it may impede the ongoing

investigation.

4.1. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant

has vociferously has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner

by arguing that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious and

grave in nature. He has raised arguments in tandem with the arguments

raised by learned State counsel. He further submits that the petitioner has

4 of 9

CRM-M-2848-2026 Page |5

played an active role in defrauding the complainant-side &, hence, prays for

dismissal of the instant petition

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

gone through the available record of the case.

6. 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 anticipatory bail may hamper the investigation. Pre-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.

             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 questioned 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 material 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 5 of 9

CRM-M-2848-2026 Page |6

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 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 also 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 Satlingappa Mhetre [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 :

(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 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. (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 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 :

6 of 9

CRM-M-2848-2026 Page |7

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 1, Constitution Bench of this Court held that while considering an application for grant of pre-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:-

"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 considering 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 discretion of the court."

7. As per the allegations put forth in the FIR, serious allegations

have been levelled against the present petitioner. The FIR has been

registered against the petitioner and his co-accused on the basis of specific

and categorical accusations. The petitioner, in connivance with the other

accused persons, is alleged to have cheated the complainant on the pretext of

procuring Government work orders, thereby causing huge loss to the tune of

₹6.5 crore. As per the case set up by the prosecution, out of the said amount,

a sum of ₹91 lakh was credited into the bank account of the petitioner, and

the petitioner has failed to explain the source from which the said amount

was received. As per submissions made by learned State counsel, the

investigation is still at a preliminary stage, and custodial interrogation of the

present petitioner is necessary to unravel the truth. The learned counsel for

the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the case registered against him is

false.

                                  7 of 9

 CRM-M-2848-2026                                                                     Page |8

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 effective investigation. In State v. Anil Sharma

[State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 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 themselves in a

8 of 9

CRM-M-2848-2026 Page |9

responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."

9. In view of the gravity of the allegations and nature of offence,

since the necessity of custodial interrogation would arise for a fair and

thorough investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual

matrix of the case in hand. 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.

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
January 20, 2026
Naveen


             Whether speaking/reasoned:                 Yes/No
             Whether reportable:                        Yes/No




                                 9 of 9