IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rajesh Kumar Sanghal and another ....Petitioners V/s State of Haryana ....Respondent Date of decision: 19.01.2026 Date of Uploading : 19.01.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Prateek Rathee, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mrs. Priyanka Sadar, Sr. DAG Hry.

Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed 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 petitioners in case bearing FIR No.460 dated 08.08.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61 of BNS, 2023, at Police Station DLF, District Gurugram, Haryana.

2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant company i.e. R9 Wealth India Private Limited, stated that on 06.06.2025, the accused persons entered into an agreement with the complainant to supply 40,000 equity shares listed on the National Stock Exchange at a price of Rs.2,253/- per share. The total value of the transaction was Rs.9,01,20,000/-. In pursuance of this understanding, the complainant company paid an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the accused on 06.06.2025 as token money.

Subsequently, a formal deal note was executed on 09.06.2025 wherein the accused again agreed to deliver 40,000 equity shares to the complainant. After execution of the deal note, the complainant paid the balance amount of Rs.8,81,21,000/- alongwith Rs.13,518/- towards stamp duty to the accused. The accused acknowledged the receipt of the entire payment. As per the terms of the deal, the delivery of shares was required to be completed by 13.06.2025. However, the accused failed to deliver the shares within the stipulated time and sought extension till 16.06.2025. Despite the extended time, the accused did not deliver the shares. Thereafter, the complainant sent several emails to the accused on 16.06.20256, 18.06.2025, 19.06.2025 and 20.06.2025 requesting immediate delivery of the shares and highlighting the loss of reputation and operational difficulties faced by the complainant due to the non-delivery. On 21.06.2025, the accused Abhishek Kumar Sanghal (petitioner No.2 herein), sent an email to the complainant acknowledging receipt of Rs.9,01,20,000/-. In the same email, he expressed his inability to deliver the shares stating that the shares were to be sourced from a third party namely Sneh Kirti Nagda who had allegedly cheated him and failed to return the invested capital or deliver the shares. He further informed the complainant the legal proceedings had already been initiated against the said third party. The complainant stated that there was no contractual relationship between the complainant and Sneh Kirti Nagda and that the payment was made directly to the accused for purchase of shares. It was further alleged that the transaction was not conditional upon procurement of shares from any third party. According to the complainant, the accused intentionally misled and cheated the complainant by taking advantage of earlier successful transaction between the parties in order to gain the trust of the complainant. On these allegations, the instant FIR came to be registered and investigation ensued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has iterated that the petitioners have been falsely implicated into the FIR in question and the dispute arises out of a failed commercial transaction. Learned counsel has further iterated that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners at any stage of the transaction and the allegations in the FIR do not disclose the commission of any criminal offence. Learned counsel has further contended that the petitioners themselves are victims of fraud committed by a third party namely Sneh Kirti Nagda from whom the shares were to be procured. The entire amount received from the complainant company was transferred to the said third part