Mahender @ Maninder Jangra v. State Of Haryana
CRM-M-22595-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.217 CRM-M-22595-2026 Decided on : 07.05.2026 Mahender @ Maninder Jangra ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM :
*** Present :
Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arnav Ghai and Mr. Jeevanjot S.Kang, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana for the respondent-State.
*** , J (ORAL)
!"
#$ %
% %&' &'
( ) *
+
, -+!
. +/ " .
( 012 -3+ 4- &
'
,
5#$6
- %5$6
, , +
7 + "#
CRM-M-22595-2026 2
8
+
+
+
9
- + +
-
,
8
- ,
-,
9
-
+
+
3 , No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner, and his custodial interrogation is not required. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Agency and shall fully cooperate with the investigation. On these grounds, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed.
4 On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report, which is taken on record. He while referring to the said status report has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He contends that the petitioner being the proprietor of M/s Vishvakarma Overseas was allotted 39,872.25 quintals of paddy, of which 67% was to be returned to the department as rice and the petitioner failed to do so, pursuant to which a physical verification was conducted. During the verification conducted by a senior officer of the Food and Supply Department with proper videography, 26,922.5 quintals of paddy amounting to Rs.7 crores approximately was found missing. Learned State counsel contends that the petitioner has defrauded the government causing a loss of approximately Rs.7 crores to
CRM-M-22595-2026 3 the State exchequer. He submits that the relevant documents are yet to be recovered from the petitioner and further the involvement of other accused is yet to be ascertained and the embezzled paddy is yet to be recovered. Thus, the petitioner does not deserve any concession from this Court. $ Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record -
-
(
01 2 -3+4-,
5#$6
,
%#:,
,
,
- , 4
)
)
- %5$6
+
"#
7 + , +
(
-
7 + "#
7 6;
-
+
-+
;
--+
;
+ << - (
+ --+
+( .
,
6
-
+
-
+
=
>
,
+ , ? +
+
.
-
-
+
CRM-M-22595-2026 4 % !
+
,
. 6 ,
-
&'( .
3 ,
+
;
;
, + 6
!
,
?
9 @ + .
, A
! "#$
%
!
%
&
'
(
'
%
# ( 9 B +.
"P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement", (2019) 9 SCC 24,
,
+
,
7 + ( -
?
A=
CRM-M-22595-2026 5 ))*
!
! + (
, -.
%! !
! /0! #$ 12.
*
,
4 5
6 )$.
! "#$ . ,
, 7
5
8
5
* %9 -
:::::::::
$#;
!
%
;
<
5
8
4
CRM-M-22595-2026 6 /
. +
+ 7
0-
-
, -+ , (
- + + 5 !
+
- +
7
+
1
++
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
AD1