CRM-M/42656/2026 of RAJ KUMAR Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER on 26 August 2026

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-42656

IN THE HI IN THE HI IN THE HI IN THE HI

Raj Kumar

State of Harya

Date of decisi Date of decisi Date of decisi Date of decisi Date of Uploa Date of Uploa Date of Uploa Date of Uploa

CORAM:

CORAM:

CORAM:

CORAM:

Present: Present: Present: Present:-

SUMEET GO SUMEET GO SUMEET GO SUMEET GO

Nagarik Surak P.C.) seeking No.355 dated Sections 316( District Sonip

dismissed as w liberty to file antecedents of 6-2026

IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-42656

42656-2 versus ana and another ion: ion: ion: ion: August 26 August 26 August 26 August 26, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 ading: ading: ading: ading: August 26 August 26 August 26 August 26, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEE Mr. Sumit Tiwana, Advocate for th Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senio Mr. Vishal Nehra, Advocate for th ***** ***** ***** *****

OEL OEL OEL OEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present 2nd petition has been filed u ksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BN g grant of anticipatory bail to the 30.08.2025, registered for commis 2), 318(4), 351(2) of the BNS, 20 pat. The last plea for grant of antici withdrawn, vide order dated 28.07 e afresh, on the same cause of f the petitioner.

HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH

….Petitioner ….Respondents ET GOEL ET GOEL ET GOEL ET GOEL he petitioner. or DAG Haryana. he complainant. under Section 482 of the Bharatiya NSS’) (earlier Section 438 of Cr. e petitioner, in case bearing FIR ssion of offences punishable under 23, at Police Station Gohana City, ipatory bail to the petitioner was 7.2026 passed by this Court, with action, after disclosing complete

r s a . R r , s h e MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.08.26 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-42656

42656-2026

2. The FIR in question pertains to cheating the complainant for an amount of `3,20,000/-.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are wholly concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. It has further been contended that no alleged offence, whatsoever, is made out against the petitioner and that the dispute, in essence, is purely of civil in nature. It has also been argued that the petitioner had never made any such promise to the complainant that the car (vehicle No.DL-1CAG-6506 (Hyundai i-

10) would be taken back in the event of any defect being found therein subsequently. Rather, owing to the cordial relations between the parties, the petitioner had, in fact, handed over his another car (bearing registration No.HR- 26CW-0121 (XUV500) to the complainant. It has also been reiterated that the petitioner had been regularly paying the loan installments to one Raju Verma, from whom he had purchased the car (bearing registration No.HR-26CW-0121 (XUV500), which was subsequently handed over to the complainant. It has further been iterated that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than 03 months in lodging the FIR in question, which creates doubt in the prosecution story.

3.1. Learned counsel has further contended that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and to cooperate with the investigating agency as and when required. It has been contended that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind bars. On the strength of MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.08.26 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-42656

42656-2026

the aforesaid submissions, grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner has been entreated for.

4. Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of an affidavit dated 18.08.2026, which is already on record. It has been stated, in the said status report, as under: “14. The role of petitioner/accused Raj Kumar is as follows: He induced the complainant to purchase vehicle No.DL-1CAG-6506 (Hyundai i-10) for a consideration of Rs.2,50,000/-, while allegedly concealing the fact that the vehicle was accidental/defective. After the complainant discovered the condition of the vehicle and demanded return of his money, accused Raj Kumar took back the vehicle and, instead of refunding the amount, handed over another vehicle bearing registration No.HR-26CW- 0121 (XUV 500) as temporary replacement, promising to return the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on a specified date. However, he failed to honour his promise and did not return the money. The accused also allegedly threatened the complainant when he demanded his money back and thereafter avoided joining the investigation despite repeated notices and efforts by the investigating agency. The vehicle subsequently handed over by the accused was found to be registered in the name of another person and was taken into custody/handed over to its registered owner by the Police Station Model Town, Panipat. Thus, accused Raj Kumar has a direct and active role in the alleged cheating, non-refund of the amount, and subsequent conduct relating to the vehicle.”

4.1. Raising submissions in tandem with the said status report, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner in the FIR. It has been stated that considering the seriousness of the allegations, there exists a reasonable apprehension that the petitioner, if granted the concession of anticipatory bail, may abscond from the process of justice as also tamper with the prosecution evidence/ witnesses. Learned State counsel has also submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the purpose of conducting an effective and fair investigation. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned State counsel has prayed that the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.08.26 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-42656

42656-2026

4.2. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of petition in hand by arguing that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. It has been reiterated that the petitioner had sold a car to the complainant for a consideration of `2,50,000/-, which was subsequently found to be defective. It has further been submitted that, upon the complainant returning the said car and demanding a refund of the amount paid, the petitioner handed over another car to him. However, while the complainant was getting the said car repaired, it was taken into possession by the police concerned, as the same was found to be a stolen vehicle. The complainant had, in the meantime, incurred an expenditure of `70,000/- towards the repair of the said car. Consequently, the complainant suffered a total loss of `3,20,000/- on account of the alleged dishonest inducement on the part of the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that, thus, the petitioner ought not to be extended the concession of anticipatory bail. Hence, dismissal of the petition in hand is entreated 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 prosecution case, and upon a perusal of the record as well as the order passed by the Court below, it prima facie emerges that serious allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner. It is, prima facie, borne out from the prosecution case that the petitioner had sold a car to the complainant, which was subsequently found to be defective/ accident-damaged. Upon the complainant discovering the defects and demanding refund of the amount paid, the petitioner, for the time being, handed over another car to him. However, subsequently, the said car was taken into possession by the police, as it was found to be a stolen vehicle. A perusal of the prosecution case, prima facie, indicates that the petitioner had defrauded the complainant of a substantial MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.08.26 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-42656

42656-2026

amount. In view of the serious allegations of dishonest inducement and cheating, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner does not merit the grant of the extraordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

6.1. 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.

7. 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 wider 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 establish 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 State State State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] 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 responsible MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.08.26 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-42656

42656-2026

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

8. Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations, 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 dismissed dismissed dismissed.

9. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

(SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE August 26 August 26 August 26 August 26, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 mahavir

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.08.26 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment