Rajan Agarwal v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 25.03.2026 RAJAN AGARWAL ......Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ......Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Addl. AG, Haryana. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1.

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- Name of Petitioner (s) FIR No.

Date Section(s) Police Station District Rajan Aggarwal, aged about 51 years 17.03.2025 314, 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS Chhapar Yamuna Nagar 2.

On 06.05.2025, following order was passed:- "2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even if the allegations as stated in the complaint are taken at their face value, the petitioner's maximum liability towards the complainant would amount to Rs. 3,62,91,388/-. It is submitted that, out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 1 Crore has already been repaid by the petitioner to the complainant.

To further show the bona fide and willingness to settle the dispute amicably by paying the remaining dues, counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner

is ready to pay the amount of Rs.50 lacs more even today and thereon produces photocopy of a Demand Draft bearing No. 057383 dated 02.05.2025 for an amount of Rs. 50 Lakhs. Photocopy of the same is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at appropriate place with the paper-book.

Thus, prays for grant of concession of anticipatory bail to petitioner in the present case, as he is ready to join the investigation, as and when called by the investigating agency.

3.

Notice of motion.

On advance notice, Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana, puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent - State.

4.

Adjourned to 21.05.2025.

5.

Till the next of hearing, arrest of petitioner shall remain stayed.

To be shown in the urgent list."

3.

Thereupon, vide order dated 21.05.2025, petitioner expressed his willingness to hand over a demand draft of Rs.50 lakhs. However, since Investigating Officer was not present, the same could not be handed over. Consequently, petitioner was directed to join the investigation, vide the said order dated 21.05.2025. 4.

Continuing his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, during the pendency of the present petition, petitioner has already deposited a total amount of Rs.2,05,65,000, in respect of which receipts have been duly issued. 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced photocopies of the said receipts, which are taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place in the file. 6.

Further submits that in compliance of the order dated 21.05.2025, passed by this Court, petitioner has joined the investigation, and has fully co-operated. Therefore, he prays for confirmation of the said interim anticipatory bail order.

7.

Learned State counsel on instructions from SI Pawan Kumar, confirms the said averment made by counsel for the petitioner of joining the investigation by the petitioner, and submits that as of now, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation.

8.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

9.

Since, petitioner has already joined the investigation and custodial interrogation is no more required; ad-interim bail order dated 21.05.2025, passed by this Court is hereby made absolute. Accordingly, present petition is allowed.

However, petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the terms and conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. 10.

Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.

However, present order would be subject to the submission of passport of the petitioner to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses, within a period of one week from today. Otherwise, he would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport.

It is clarified that in case, aforesaid condition is not complied with, this order would be considered as non est automatically. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 25.03.2026 Lavisha Whether Speaking/Reasoned:

YES/NO Whether Reportable:

YES/NO