CRM-M/32892/2026 of RAJBIR ALIAS RAJBIR VERMA Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 10 September 2026

1. On 05.06.2026, the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner has inter alia argued that on 15.02.2024, the petitioner entered into an Agreement To Sell with the complainant in respect of a residential house with a target date of 15.08.2024; that FIR in the present case was registered in February, 2026 and there is an inordinate delay in initiating the FIR; that offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are anti-thesis and cannot co-exist; that the lis in question is a civil lis but has been given a color of criminality; that the petitioner has already repaid Rs.5 lakhs out of the total earnest money of Rs.17 lakhs and is also ready to repay the remaining amount of Rs.12 lakhs in a time-bound schedule with 6% per annum rate of interest w.e.f. 15.02.2024; that he will repay Rs.2 JATIN

lakhs to the complainant against proper receipt in first week of July, 2026 and will then pay the remaining amount of Rs.10 lakhs with the above-stated interest within a further period of 4 months; that the petitioner is ready to join investigation and further to cooperate with the investigating agency on all material counts. Notice of motion. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl.A.G., Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the State of Haryana. Ms. Preeti Singh, Advocate has filed her memo of appearance for the complainant. It be scanned and be then placed at the appropriate place. Learned State counsel assisted by Ms. Preeti Singh, Advocate has opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by contending that mens-rea of the petitioner was in existence on 15.02.2024 and therefore, offence/s in question are squarely made out against him. However, learned counsel for the complainant also states that the complainant will be satisfied if his remaining money is repaid by the petitioner in the above- mentioned time-bound schedule. Learned State counsel prays for time to file status report. To come up on 17.07.2026 for the said purpose. Be that as it may, without commenting anything upon merits of the FIR/matter in question but considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the totality of the facts/circumstances of the present case, the petitioner is directed to join investigation with the concerned investigating officer within seven days from today. It is also ordered that in the event of his arrest in the FIR in question, he shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of such officer. However, on such bail, he shall comply with the term/s and condition/s contained in Section 437(3) and 438(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. If the petitioner does not pay the JATIN

above-stated Rs.2,00,000/- in the first week of July, 2026, interim bail granted today to him shall stand withdrawn.”

2. On 26.08.2026, the following order was passed:- “Reiterating his submissions, as recorded in the order dated 5.6.2026, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the genesis of the FIR in question is primarily a civil/property related dispute & the petitioner is willing to join investigation and cooperate therein. List on 10.9.2026. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 31.8.2026 at 11:00 A.M. in concerned Police Station and join investigation. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. As and when further called by Investigating Officer, the petitioner shall join the investigation. He shall abide by the condition(s) enumerated under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.”

3. Learned State counsel, on instructions, has stated that pursuant to the orders dated 05.06.2026 and 26.08.2026 the petitioner has joined investigation and is no longer required for custodial interrogation.

4. Keeping in view the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and cooperated therein and is no longer required by the State for further custodial interrogation, this Court is inclined to confirm the order dated 26.08.2026 granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS. JATIN

5. Ordered accordingly.

6. This order should not be treated as “blanket” order. It will not be read granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence.

7. Liberty is reserved in favour of State/complainant to move for cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioner violates any condition stipulated under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 or upon showing any other sufficient cause.

8. Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE 10.09.2026 jatin Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No JATIN