IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

209 Date of decision: 16.02.2026 Shubham ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Mohit, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Paras Talwar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 0629 dated 17.09.2025 registered under Sections 308(2), 316(2), 351(3) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station HTM, Hisar District Hisar.

2. Briefly stated, the present FIR came to be registered on the complaint lodged by Meera Devi, wife of Surajbhan who alleged that accused Somnath, son of Sanjay Kumar, and Shubham (the present petitioner), being her distant relatives, had advanced certain amounts to her on interest against gold ornaments pledged by her. It was stated that on 01.08.2022, upon seeking financial assistance for personal needs, the complainant handed over to accused Somnath one gold coin weighing 3 tolas, gold earrings, a mangalsutra, and a gold ring weighing half a tola, against which she received a sum of Rs.70,000/- at an agreed interest of 2% per month. On 01.09.2022, she is stated to have repaid Rs.74,000/- in the presence of her daughter Monika, whereupon Somnath assured her that the pledged jewellery would be returned within a week. However, despite repeated requests, the jewellery was not returned. It is further stated that Somnath subsequently claimed that the agreed rate of interest was 10% per month and continued to demand additional amounts from her. The complainant approached accused No. 2, namely Shubham (the present petitioner), for financial assistance on similar terms. On 10.09.2015, she handed over diamond bangles and gold tops belonging to her daughter Monika, valued at approximately Rs.1,50,000/-, and received Rs.1,20,000/- in return. In June 2024, she is repaid Rs.1,44,000/- (inclusive of principal and interest) to the present petitioner in the presence of her daughter, who recorded a video of the petitioner counting the money. Despite an assurance to return the pledged jewellery within 10–15 days, the same was not returned. It is further alleged that both accused persons ultimately refused to return the jewellery and extended threats to the complainant and her family. The complainant asserted that the accused had exploited her illiteracy and financial vulnerability. On the basis of the written complaint, FIR No. 0629 dated 17.09.2025 was registered under Sections 308(2), 316(2), 3(5), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station HTM Hisar, District Hisar, Haryana.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the present FIR suffers from an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than 3 years. According to the version set out in the complaint, the alleged transactions and refusal to return the jewellery pertain to September 2022, whereas the FIR came to be registered only on 17.09.2025. It is submitted that such prolonged silence on the part of the complainant, without any cogent explanation, casts serious doubt on the veracity and bona fides of the allegations. It is further argued that the offences invoked are punishable with imprisonment extending up to seven years and do not fall within the category of offences of an exceptionally grave or heinous nature. Counsel contends that the petitioner has clean antecedents and there is nothing on record to suggest that he is likely to abscond. Learned counsel has also submitted that reliance has been placed by the complainant upon a video recording allegedly depicting the petitioner counting money at the time of repayment. However, it is pointed out that the said video clip contains no audible conversation and does not establish the nature of the transaction or any acknowledgment regarding the jewellery in