205-2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 12.02.2026 Satparkash .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***

Present :- Mr. Ashish Jhamb, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. H.P.S. Ishar, Advocate for the complainant.

***

RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J .

1. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.158 dated 16.09.2025, under Sections 318(4), 61(2) of BNS and Section 21, 23(3) of the BUDS Act, 2019, registered at Police Station BPTP, Faridabad.

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that the FIR was registered on the statement of the complainant along with 13 other persons against Pushpender Morya (CMD); Neelam Rani Morya, Director (wife of Pushpender Morya); Satya Prakash Morya (petitioner), Director (brother of Pushpender Morya); Chander Hash Sharma, Director and Sameer Rahne (main Promoter) of the A.B.M.P.L Multi Trade Private Limited Company . It was alleged that Sameer Rahne in connivance with the above-named persons contacted the complainant(s) in the month of January, 2025 and induced them to invest money. They explained them the business plan of the said Company and showed attractive profit schemes, whereby they met Pushpender Morya (CMD) and other Directors. They were repeatedly assured of high returns and guaranteed benefits. The accused persons promised that on investing Rs.11,05,000/-, the complainant(s) would receive, a Watch, an electric Scooty, a plot at first instance and monthly income of Rs.81,000/- for 36 months, with assured returns and Company Bonuses. The CMD namely, Pushpender Morya demanded money, both by way of cheque as well as bank transfer. He took an undated cheque No.312365 of Account Number ending with 4015, to the tune of Rs.2.00 crore. He assured that the cheque would be kept only as security and would not be misused. They were taken to Delhi and other places, where fake success stories were shown. Some plots and vehicles were also shown which later on were not found to be registered in the complainants' name or were fake/already sold. Thereafter, only partial money was returned to some of the complainants and rest received nothing. When insisted for refund, repeatedly, aggrieved persons were asked to come over after a few days but eventually, the accused persons stopped responding and started avoiding them. Hence, the accused persons, in a planned conspiracy, cheated the complainants, took large sum of money by making false promises, misused signed cheques and failed to return the invested amount. Hence, request was made to take legal action against the above-said accused persons. On registration of the FIR, apprehending the arrest, petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad praying for grant of anticipatory bail. However, after hearing counsel for the parties, finding no merit in the same, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, declined the same vide order dated 08.01.2026. Hence, being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case merely on the basis of his designation as a Director. He submits that the petitioner was neither involved in policy-making nor in day-to-day management or financial affairs of the Company. He further submits that the petitioner was not the signatory to any bank account rather his role was only confined to limited professional duties including distribution of electric scooters and execution of sale deeds strictly as per the directions of the Promoters. He submits that there is no evidence regarding the receiving or misappropriation of funds from any alleged investor. It is further pertinent to mention that co-accused namely, Neelam Rani, has already been granted interim protection by this Court vide order da