IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-74094-2025 (O&M)

DECIDED ON: 31.12.2025

JASDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER

.....PETITIONERS

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA

.....RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Present: Mr. Baljinder Singh Virk, Advocate

for the petitioners.

Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate

for the complainant.

Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. Prayer

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 482 of

the BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in connection with FIR No. 302 dated 06.11.2025 under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 61 BNS registered

at Police Station Kaithal Sadar, Haryana.

2. Contention

On behalf of the petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations

against the petitioners pertain to a financial transaction of Rs.13,50,000/- which the petitioners deny stating that they have no connection with the complainant or

his family. It is further submitted that the alleged firm does not exist. It is asserted that it is a purely civil dispute and has been given a criminal colour. It is further asserted that the petitioners are ready and willing to join the investigation as and when required. Hence, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required and the petitioners deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.

Notice of motion.

On behalf of the State/complainant On the asking of Court, Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl. AG Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent/State. He prays for dismissal of the present petition stating, upon instructions from ASI Rohtash, EOW Kaithal, that the petitioners along with his coaccused obtained Rs.13,50,000/- from the complainant, promising a 2% commission, at their commission agent shop, and partial repayment of Rs.1,50,000/- was made via google pay which is suffice to infer that the petitioners have actively participated in commissioning the offence.

The State counsel has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, arguing that the petitioner is withholding the money despite the instructions of Sonu to return it to the compalinant, as stated by Sonu to the prosecution during investigation.

3. Analysis Upon examination of the material placed on record, it appears that the petitioners’ role in the transaction of Rs.13,50,000/- is not established prima facie. The FIR suggests that the petitioners are not direct beneficiary of the amount in question and no record showing their involvement with other accused in conniving to defraud the complainant is present. Given the circumstances, custodial interrogation is not warranted at this stage. Moreover, as asserted by the petitioners, the dispute seems to be more civil in nature, related to recovery of amounts, being given a criminal colour. Hence, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be allowed.

4. Relief:-

Hence, the petitioners are directed to be released on anticipatory bail subject to their joining investigation with the Investigating Officer concerned within a period of one week from today, on furnishing of personal/surety bonds to his satisfaction. The petitioners shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, which are reproduced below:-

‘When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub- section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including-

(i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

(iv) such other condition as may b