[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manoj Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 19 March, 2026
CRM-M-30009-2025 (O&M) 1
101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-30009-2025 (O&M)
DECIDED ON: 19.03.2026
MANOJ KUMAR .....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.
Present: Mr. Ram Bhati, Advocate, and
Ms. Pooja Kumari, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate,
for the complainant.
SANJAY VASHISTH, J (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking
grant of anticipatory bail, in case, FIR No.11, dated 11.01.2025, under
Sections 316(2), 318(4), 319(2), 61 of BNS (sections 338, 336(3), 340(2)
of BNS added later on), registered at Police Station Sector 17, District
Faridabad.
2. After hearing the submissions addressed by counsel for the
petitioner, on 28.05.2025, following order was passed:-
"2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia,
submits that although the anticipatory bail application
of the main accused, Sandeep @ Sanju, has already
been dismissed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated
11.02.2025, passed in CRM-M-4156-2025, titled
"Sandeep v. State of Haryana", yet the petitioner's
case stands on a different footing. It is specifically
contended that no direct or indirect monetary benefit
has accrued to the petitioner from the alleged fraud
committed by the coaccused, thereby distinguishing
his role altogether.
3. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner
has been implicated solely on the basis of the
disclosure statement of co-accused Sandeep @ Sanju
--whose anticipatory bail has already been declined
-- alleging that the present petitioner was also a
conspirator in the commission of the said offence.
However, there is neither any documentary evidence
available on record nor any financial transaction
reflecting any proceeds of crime credited to the
petitioner's account, which could prima facie establish
his involvement at this stage. Moreover, learned
counsel submits that the petitioner is about 40 years of
age, and no prior criminal antecedents have been
attributed to him. Thus, prays for grant of concession
of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present
case.
4. Notice of motion.
5. On advance notice, learned State counsel puts
in appearance on behalf of the respondent - State, and
seeks some time to respond to the submissions
addressed by learned counsel opposite, after seeking
instructions. And, in case of necessity, to file status
report.
6. Adjourned to 21.07.2025.
7. Learned State counsel shall file the
comprehensive status report details therein the
allegations and the substantive evidence to prove the
allegations.
8. Till the next date of hearing, petitioner shall not
be arrested. However, question of joining of
investigation of the petitioner would be examined on
the next date of hearing."
3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he made all
necessary arrangements for producing a woman, projecting her to be the
actual owner, namely Hardai Devi, at the time of registration of the sale
deed. For this purpose, he was allegedly paid an amount of Rs.15-20
lakhs, which was found to have been deposited in his bank account
immediately prior to the registration of the FIR. It is further alleged that a
new car was purchased in the name of his brother, Pardeep.
4. In the status report dated 24.10.2025, filed by learned State
counsel, it has been mentioned that the main accused, namely Sandeep
alias Sanju, had already been arrested on 12.03.2025, and it was he, who
disclosed the name of the present petitioner along with other accused
persons, alleging that they had prepared fake documents and produced a
woman who impersonated Hardai Devi. In lieu thereof, petitioner is
stated to have received a commission.
Out of the said commission, it is alleged that on 08.01.2025,
a car--Hyundai Exter bearing registration No.HR-29-BE-1454--was
purchased for an amount of Rs.9,34,000/- in the name of the petitioner's
brother.
5. Further, status report attempts to establish that, as per CCTV
footage and location data, both the brothers were present together at the
time of deposit of Rs.8 lakhs in the bank account of the petitioner's
brother, Pradeep Kumar.
6. Faced with these allegations, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that even if the contents of the status report are taken
at their face value, same would not warrant custodial interrogation of the
petitioner, at this stage. It is argued that the car was admittedly purchased
by the petitioner's brother, who has independent financial resources, and
mere assumptions cannot lead to the conclusion that petitioner was
involved in the alleged offence or arranged for impersonation of Hardai
Devi.
7. Counsel for the petitioner further contends that even if it is
assumed that petitioner received a commission, such receipt, in isolation,
does not constitute an offence. In property transactions carried out under
a bona fide belief, it is common for intermediaries to receive
commission. Thus, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner
in the present case.
8. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as counsel
for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions made on
behalf of the petitioner, and submit that considering the nature and
gravity of the offence, petitioner does not deserve the concession of
anticipatory bail and, therefore, jointly pray for dismissal of the present
petition.
9. This Court has heard the submissions advanced by counsel
for the parties and has perused the record available on file.
10. At this stage, it appears that allegations are primarily
required to be established through documentary evidence, for which
custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary, particularly
when the case against him is based largely on suspicion. Moreover,
offences alleged are triable by the Court of learned Magistrate.
11. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of
the present petition, with direction to the petitioner to join the
investigation within two weeks from today, or as and when called by the
investigating agency, and in the eventuality of the arrest, petitioner would
be released on anticipatory bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the
satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall also be abide by
all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier
Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.).
12. Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over his
passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he
possesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that
he does not possess any passport.
It is also directed that before leaving country any time during
trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of the Court.
13. With the directions passed here above, present petition
stands disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
19.03.2026 JUDGE
Lavisha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
