IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH B. Rajiv Sinha ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana ....Respondent Date of decision: 13.11.2025 Date of uploading: 13.11.2025 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. A.K. Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate for Mr. Jayant Yadav, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition is the second attempt 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.3 dated 03.01.2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120-B of the IPC at Police Station Rewari Sadar, District Rewari.

The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of pre-

arrest/anticipatory bail before this Court which was dismissed vide order on

18.04.2022. The said order reads as under:-

“Vide order dated 4.3.2022, petitioner was granted interim anticipatory bail. He was directed to join investigation forthwith and the case was adjourned to 31.3.2022. Thereafter, when the case came up for hearing on 31.3.2022, on the request of learned counsel for petitioner, it was adjourned to 18.4.2022 (today) and interim order was directed to continue.

Mr. Girdhar, learned AAG Haryana points out that despite direction contained in order dated 4.3.2022, petitioner has not joined investigation.

Learned counsel for petitioner has requested for some further time.

. A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached prima facie points towards the petitioner’s involvement and does not make out a case for bail. The impact of crime would also not justify bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so.

18. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case’s merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

19. Petition dismissed. Interim orders are recalled with immediate effect. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of.”

Thereafter, the present petition i.e. the second petition for grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail has been preferred by the petitioner on

10.11.2025.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that on 01.12.2020, a Promissory Note was executed between the complainant and Mr. B. Rajiv Sinha, Director of M/s HY Tech Organic Farms LLP (petitioner herein) under which the complainant agreed to develop a mushroom cultivation unit on his land measuring 2000 sq. ft. situated at Ramgarh Bhagwanpur, Rewari. It has been further alleged that in pursuance ₹

of the said agreement, the complainant paid a total amount of 20,00,000 (Rupees Twenty Lakh only) by cheque to the aforesaid company. In return, the representatives of the said company assured that the complainant that he ₹

would receive an amount of 83,333/- per month for a period of 72 months and that all the electricity and water charges would be borne by the said Company as per the terms of the Promissory Note. However, despite repeated assurances, the said Company failed to fulfill its commitments. The complainant has alleged that only about 50% of the project work was completed and subsequently all further work was abruptly stopped without any justification. As per the complainant, he had received only three ₹

monthly payments of 60,000/- each during March 2021 and May 2021. Thereafter, the complainant alleged that all the payments ceased without explanation which apparently showed that the the accused persons i.e. Mr. B. Rajiv Sinha (petitioner herein), Mr. Sidharth Sharma and Mr. Hiren Patel had a dishonest and fraudulent intention from the very beginning. It has been further alleged that the aforesaid accused deceitfully executed the ₹

Promissory Note to induce the complainant to part with a sum of 20 lakhs and have since misappropriated the said funds. The complainant has further alleged th