Jimmy Hasmukhbhai Rathod v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-34851-2025 Date of decision: 03.12.2025 Jimmy Hasmukhbhai Rathod ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY

Present:

Mr. Pardeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Singh, AAG, Haryana.

AARADHNA SAWHNEY , J (ORAL) 1.

This order shall dispose of present petition for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner, an accused in case FIR No.0030 dated 09.02.2024 under Sections 120-B,420 IPC and Section 3(2) of The Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013 (Haryana Act No.32 of 2014) registered at P.S Panipat City, District Panipat. 2.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Sonu, submits that the petitioner has since joined the investigation and is no longer required for further custodial interrogation.

3.

Heard.

4.

On 22.07.2025, following order was passed by this Court: " The petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in case FIR No.30 dated 09.02.2024, under Sections 120-B, 420 IPC and Section 3(2) of the Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013, registered at Police Station Panipat City.

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant had invested an amount of Rs. 20,40,000/- in the company namely Hindustan Energy Savers Pvt. Ltd. and launching ceremony of the same was held on 25.04.2023 and at that time all the director, team, guest, chief guest were present.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not the director of the company on 25.04.2023 as he was appointed as Director on 28.11.2023. It is also submitted that the petitioner had never received the alleged amount from the complainant in any manner, though, he is also the victim as he had also invested in the said company. The petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Adjourned to 10.09.2025.

Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was not a Director of the company on the said date, he is directed to appear before the SHO/Investigating Officer to join investigation as and when required and in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on interim bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of SHO/Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS [erstwhile Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.:- i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court; iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of Section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section."

5.

Keeping in view the above submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as also the fact that the petitioner has joined the investigation, interim bail granted vide order dated 22.07.2025 is hereby confirmed, subject to conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) BNSS. Further the petitioner is

directed to join investigation as and when required in future by way of written notice for such purpose to be served by Investigating Officer of this case upon the petitioner; he will not tamper with the evidence nor will influence the witnesses and will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. 6.

The petition stands allowed.

03.12.2025 ( AARADHNA SAWHNEY ) manoj JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No