Rajpati And Another v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.107 Date of Decision: 01.04.2026 RAJPATI AND ANOTHER

...Petitioners

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Nishant Arora, Advocate and Mr. Gaurav Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners.

***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) 1.

This is the first petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in FIR No. 0082 dated 13.03.2026, registered under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of the IPC at Police Station Jind City, District Jind. 2.

In brief, the facts of the case are that the present FIR has been registered on the basis of a complaint wherein the complainant alleged that he was known to Subhash and had developed business relations with him. Subhash induced the complainant to invest in a liquor contract by assuring him partnership and profits. It is alleged that on 07.06.2021, petitioner Rajpati along with co-accused including Saurabh Singh and her husband Subhash came to the shop of the complainant and jointly took an amount of ₹80 lakhs in cash from him for the alleged liquor contract partnership. Thereafter, further amounts were also taken partly in cash and partly through bank transactions. However, despite repeated demands, neither partnership

deed was executed nor the amount was returned in full. When the complainant pressed for return of money, the accused persons kept avoiding on one pretext or the other. It is further alleged that when the complainant demanded his money, Saurabh along with Subhash showed a pistol and threatened to shoot him and his family. The main accused Subhash is still at large.

3.

It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the dispute is essentially of a civil nature arising out of financial transactions. It is further contended that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioners and that the amount, if any, was transferred in the account of co-accused Subhash. It is also argued that the petitioners are ready to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency, and that custodial interrogation is not required.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G. Haryana. accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. 6.

Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate, has made appearance on behalf of the respondent and filed Power of Attorney, which is taken on record. 7.

Per contra, learned State counsel with the assistance of learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition and submitted that serious allegations of cheating and criminal intimidation have been levelled against the petitioners. It is argued that petitioner Rajpati along with coaccused including Saurabh Singh and her husband Subhash actively participated in inducing the complainant and in taking a huge amount of ₹80

lakhs in cash from him. It is further submitted that when the complainant demanded his money, Saurabh along with Subhash threatened him by showing a pistol. It is also pointed out that the main accused Subhash is still absconding and the role of the petitioners is not distinguishable from that of the main accused. It is thus prayed that the petition be dismissed. 8.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

9.

The allegations levelled against the petitioners are grave and serious in nature. The record prima facie reveals that the petitioners, in connivance with co-accused, induced the complainant to part with a substantial amount on the pretext of partnership in a liquor contract. The specific role attributed to the petitioners shows their active participation in the commission of the alleged offence, including the act of receiving ₹80 lakhs in cash from the complainant. The subsequent conduct of the accused persons in not returning the amount and in allegedly threatening the complainant with a firearm further aggravates the seriousness of the allegations. At this stage, the plea of the dispute being civil in nature cannot be accepted, as the allegations disclose elements of cheating and criminal intimidation. The fact that the main accused Subhash is still at large also necessitates a thorough and effective investigation. Grant of anticipatory bail in such circumstances may hamper the investigation and may also embolden the accused to influence the witnesses.

10.

Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioners, and the requirement of custodial

interrogation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. 11.

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 12.

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) 01.04.2026 JUDGE Anu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No