Raj Kumar Alias Raj Singla v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-62200-2025 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-62200-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.12.2025 RAJ KUMAR @ RAJ SINGLA ....PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present :

Mr. K.K. Goel, Advocate and Mr. Ankush Bharti, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG Haryana.

**** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral) 1.

The present petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0067 dated 16.04.2025, registered under Sections 61, 351(3), 351(2), 318(4), 316(2) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 4, 5, 6 of PCMC Act, (Section 3(2) of HPIDFE Act added later on), at Police Station Sadar Ratia, Haryana.

2.

Status report dated 29.11.2025 filed by way of an affidavit of Kulwant Singh, HPS, HQ-cum-Crime & Traffic, Fatehabad filed by respondent-State is taken on record.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel have been heard and material collected by the police during investigation has been perused.

4.

As per the prosecution case, the present case was registered on the complaint of Amrik Singh for taking action against Dr. Sukhdev Singh for committing fraud through Shishpal Frontlane Consultancy and Services Private Company Limited and for grabbing an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, and for giving

CRM-M-62200-2025 (O&M) -2threats in case of demanding the above-said amount. It is alleged that Dr. Sukhdev Singh has opened a company in village Sehnal, but after some time, he has shifted the said company in the house of Baljinder Singh @ Bindu and there were 25 agents in the said company namely Raju, Raj Kumar etc. On 18.01.2025, the agents came to his house and took Rs.3,00,000/- and deposited the said amount in the company in his name and in the name of his mother and father and handed over the receipts to him. After about two and half months, the said amount has not been returned to him. The complainant went to the office of Dr. Sukhdev Singh but his agents started abusing him and threatened to kill him and refused to return the abovesaid amount. After completion of investigation, final report has been presented.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner has not been named in the FIR. He was one of the agents of accused Sukhdev Singh, who was running the company by the name of Shishpal Frontlane Consultancy and Services Private Limited. He used to collect the amount from various investors and deposit the same in the account of the company. No amount has been siphoned off by him and the entire amount has been deposited with the company. He used to be paid salary or commission in lieu of investments procured by him. Learned counsel next contended that it is the main accused namely Dr. Sukhdev Singh, who has misappropriated the amount invested by the investors. Petitioner has been wrongly arrayed as an accused. He is in custody since 05.10.2025. Co-accused Jitender Kumar, whose case is identical to that of the petitioner, has already been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 11.08.2025 in CRM-M-31558-2025 by this Court (Annexure P-2) and Ravi Kumar vide order dated 23.05.2025 in CIS No.664-BA2025 by the Court of learned ASJ, Fatehabad (Annexure P-3). Challan has already

CRM-M-62200-2025 (O&M) -3been presented after completion of investigation. The trial will take sufficiently long time to conclude and his further detention is not required and he may be released on bail.

6.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the bail and argued that in view of gravity of offence, he does not deserve to be released on bail. 7.

The petitioner was simpliciter an employee of Dr. Sukhdev Singh, who was running a company by the name of Shishpal Frontlane Consultancy and Services Private Limited. He is used to collect money from the investors and he has deposited all the amounts with the company. No amount handed over to him by any investor has been siphoned off by him and he was either on the payroll of the company or used to get some commission. As to whether, petitioner had connived with the main accused in cheating the general public or not shall be the subject matter of trial. Petitioner is in custody since 05.10.2025. Co-accused Jitender Kumar and Ravi Kumar, whose cases are identical to that of the petitioner, have already been granted anticipatory bail. Trial is likely to take sufficiently long time to conclude and further detention of the petitioner is, thus, not required and he deserves to be released on bail.

8.

In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

9.

Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 04.12.2025 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) Vishal Vardhan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned. :

Yes/No Whether Reportable.

:

Yes/No