##PAGE1##

243

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No.17992 of 2026 Date of decision: 09.04.2026

HARENDRA SINGH RAUTELA @ HITENDRA …Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA …Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present :- Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ojaswini Gagneja, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG, Haryana.

*****

MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral)

1. This is the first petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of trial in case FIR No.204 dated 07.05.2024, registered under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 and 506 IPC (corresponding to Sections 61(2), 316(2), 318(4) and 351(2) of

BNS), at Police Station City Bhiwani, District Bhiwani, Haryana.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the present FIR was registered on the complaint of Pawan Dalmia alleging that he, along with another person, had entered into an agreement with M/s Kizansh Spirits Pvt. Ltd. for C&F agency in the State of Haryana and, in pursuance thereof, deposited an amount of about ₹1.60 crores in the bank account of the company. It is alleged that the accused persons, including the present

NEETU RANI

2026.04.10 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD

CRM-M No.17992 of 2026 -2-

petitioner, in connivance with each other, misappropriated the said amount, failed to honour their commitments and even extended threats when the

complainant demanded the money back.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the entire dispute arises out of a contractual and commercial transaction between the parties, stemming from the agreement dated 11.04.2023 executed between the complainant and M/s Kizansh Spirits Pvt. Ltd. It is submitted that the said agreement itself contains a dispute resolution mechanism, including arbitration, and therefore, any grievance arising therefrom ought to have been agitated in appropriate civil proceedings. However, instead of resorting to such remedies, the complainant has given a criminal colour to a purely civil dispute, which is impermissible in law. It is further contended that even a bare reading of the FIR would show that the allegations are omnibus and general in nature against several accused persons and no specific role or overt act has been attributed to the present petitioner so as to prima-facie constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged. It is argued that the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, particularly entrustment and dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction, are conspicuously absent in the present case. It is also submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 02.02.2026 and has remained in custody since then and has fully cooperated with the investigation. Learned counsel has further submitted that the other co-accused, namely the wife of the petitioner, Jayanti Rautela, who is also one of the Directors of the company, as well as Jitendra Kumar Kaushik, Hariom Narayan Roy and Vipin Sharma, have already been released on bail. It is, thus, argued that the case of the

NEETU RANI

2026.04.10 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD

CRM-M No.17992 of 2026 -3-

present petitioner stands on an identical footing, particularly with his wife, who is similarly placed as a Director in the company, and therefore, on the ground of parity as well, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of regular

bail.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition mainly on the ground that the case of the petitioner is not on parity with any other co-accused, including his wife Jayanti Rautela, who is stated to be one of the Directors of the company along-with the petitioner. It is submitted that she was not a signatory to the agreement in question and had merely authorized the present petiti