IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CRM-M-8000-2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 12.02.2026 Sunil Arora ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. P.K.Rohilla, Advocate and Mr. D.K.Rohilla, Advocate for the petitioner.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

1. This is the first petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, namely Sunil Arora, in the event of his arrest in FIR No.01 dated 01.01.2026, registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station City Karnal, District Karnal, Haryana.

2. Brief facts of the case are that FIR No.01 dated 01.01.2026 under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station City, Karnal, District Karnal, has been lodged on the complaint of the complainant alleging that the petitioner–accused Sunil Arora, who is running a jewellery shop in the name and style of “S.K. Jewellers, Karnal”, induced the complainant to invest money in gold on the pretext that the amount would be doubled within 5–6 months. It is alleged that on account of close relations, the complainant trusted the petitioner and initially paid Rs.39,50,000/- and thereafter Rs.10,50,000/-, totaling Rs.50,00,000/-, which was handed over at the shop of the petitioner. Despite repeated requests, the petitioner allegedly failed to return the gold or money and instead threatened the complainant. It is further alleged that the petitioner, in conspiracy with his wife and son, fraudulently obtained the said amount from the complainant.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the complainant is a relative and due to personal grudge arising out of refusal to solemnize marriage between their children, the present FIR has been lodged as a counterblast. It is further contended that there are material contradictions between the earlier complaint dated 10.07.2025 and the present FIR. The petitioner is stated to be a permanent resident of Karnal, running a reputed jewellery business, and has already joined the investigation earlier and cooperated with the police. It is submitted that the dispute, if any, is of civil nature arising out of financial transactions and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the State and contests the bail application.

6. Learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, Mr. Jatin Mehta, Advocate has opposed the petition and argued that the petitioner is accused of committing a serious economic offence involving an amount of Rs.50 lakhs, which was allegedly obtained fraudulently from the complainant in conspiracy with co-accused. It is submitted that the complainant specifically stated that at the first instance he paid Rs.39,50,000/- and thereafter Rs.10,50,000/- on the asking of the petitioner. It is further pointed out that WhatsApp chats have been produced before the Court showing exchange of messages between the petitioner and the complainant regarding the money transaction, which prima facie reflects the active involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. Learned State counsel submits that in his reply to notice issued by the Investigating Officer, the petitioner admitted receipt of Rs.50 lakhs, out of which he claimed to have returned only Rs.5 lakhs. It is argued that custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth the entire racket and to ascertain the role of co-accused and the trail of money.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. The allegations against the petitioner are specific and serious in nature. The role attributed to petitioner Sunil Arora is that he induced the complainant to invest