Gourav Dhingra v. State Of Haryana And Another

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 02.07.2026 Gourav Dhingra ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Karambir Singh Nalwa, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ashima Attri, Advocate, Ms. Sanya Gupta, Advocate and Mr. J. Yuvraj Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State.

Mr. Shailender Singh, Advocate and Ms. Simran Sidana, Advocate, for the complainant.

---- MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) CRM-25678-2026 The application is allowed, as prayed for.

-2Main Case 1.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:- FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 20.05.2025 Sector-37, District Gurugram 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC 2.

Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the Managing Director of Kawaaski Robotics India Private Limited alleging therein that the accused Arjun Mullick, Lovvish Bahree and Sahil Miglani, who were former employees of the complainant company, had connived with the petitioner and some other persons and had siphoned funds from the bank accounts of the complainant company by engaging in unauthorized expenses and transactions and by using their personal bank accounts or bank accounts of related persons in the place of vendor bank account and on the basis of making forged vendor invoices and falsifying the books of accounts to conceal their misconduct. The accused Lovvish Bahree had fraudulently transferred funds of the complainant company by replacing the vendor bank account number with the account of firm Dhingra enterprises owned by the petitioner and also by transferring funds into the personal bank

-3account of the petitioner as well as other persons named in the FIR. It was alleged that loss of huge amount of money had been caused to the complainant company.

3.

After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 19.02.2026. Investigation qua him now stands concluded and challan has been presented. 4.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A settlement has been arrived at between the respondent No.2-complainant and accused Lovvish Bahree who was formal employee of the complainant. This settlement agreement is signed on behalf of seven individuals and three firms. The petitioner was a childhood friend of accused Lovvish Bahree. He is also one of the part of the settlement agreement which is strictly between the parties named therein. As per this settlement, the accused Lovvish Bahree has made payment of an amount of Rs.5,50,00,000/- to the complainant, who has undertaken to cooperate in quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner and other persons named in the written settlement agreement Annexure P-2. He is in custody since long. He is not required for further investigation as the same stands concluded. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. The ingredients for commission of subject offences are even not attracted qua him as he was neither

-4employee of the complainant company, nor had made any inducement to any person concerned with the complainant company nor any forged document has been prepared by him. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be released on bail.

5.

Power of Attorney on behalf of complainant has been filed. Learned counsel for the complainant has also placed on record a resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the complainant company and while affirming the factum of execution of written settlement between the complainant and the persons named therein including the petitioner and by saying that this settlement is strictly between the complainant and only the persons named in the settlement deed, it is submitted by learned counsel that the complainant has no objection, if the petitioner is released on bail.

6.

Per contra, learned State counsel who has already been appearing, has vehemently argued that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner who was actively involved with the coaccused in causing wrongful loss of money to the complainant company by cheating it. It is, thus, urged that he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail.

7.

This Court has considered the rival submissions. 8.

The part attributed to the petitioner is that he in connivance

-5with co-accused Lovvish Bahree had diverted the funds of the company in his personal bank account as well as in the account of his firm thereby causing wrongful loss to it. Though the allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of offence of cheating as against the petitioner, however, he has been in custody for a period of over four months. It is a debatable question as to whether offences under Sections 409, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC are attracted qua him. Though much relevance cannot be given to the factum of settlement between the parties at this stage, however, taking into consideration the above discussed facts that the investigation stands completed, the continued detention of the petitioner is not required and his clean antecedents, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned. 9.

It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(MANISHA BATRA) 02.07.2026 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No