Madan Das vs State of Haryana

First Petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.] seeking the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 179 dated 10.04.2025, registered under Sections 120-B, 406 and 420 IPC [corresponding to Sections 61(2), 316(2) and 318(4) of the BNS], at Police Station Mujesar, District Faridabad, State of Haryana (Annexure P-1).

Brief facts of the case are that, as per the prosecution version set out by Deepak, the complainant, accused Ravi Sharma, Raju Karki, Namra Khan and others, in furtherance of a purported conspiracy, allegedly induced the complainant to invest in M/s One to Five Investment and Credit Company Private Limited.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that, out of the amount of ₹10,00,000/- credited to the petitioner’s account, an amount of ₹9,70,000/- was immediately transferred onward, leaving only ₹30,000/- with the petitioner. It is contended that the disputed amount having already been repaid to the complainant, the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406 and 420 IPC, corresponding to Sections 61(2), 316(2) and 318(4) of the BNS, are not prima facie attracted against the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the controversy is essentially civil/commercial in nature and has been given an unwarranted criminal colour. It is also contended that the investigation has been selective, perfunctory and one-sided, inasmuch as the principal persons allegedly responsible for the transaction have either not been arrayed as accused or have been exonerated without any cogent justification, while the petitioner has been singled out for prosecution. The petitioner thus alleges collusion between the complainant and the Investigating Agency and submits that the criminal proceedings have been pursued against him as a mere scapegoat. It is further pointed out that although the complaint is stated to have been made on 13.01.2025 and the FIR was registered on 10.04.2025, the investigation has remained pending and challan has not been presented till date. On these premises, learned Senior Counsel prays for grant of the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Notice of motion.

Upon receipt of advance notice, Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and vehemently opposes the petition, submitting that the impugned order suffers from neither any illegality nor any material infirmity warranting interference. Learned State counsel contends that the petitioner’s conduct prima facie establishes his association with the co-accused, as he allegedly received his share of ₹30,000/- and thereafter debited the amount from his account. It is further submitted that the other co-accused are yet to be arrested and the investigation is still in progress. Learned State counsel accordingly submits that the learned Trial Court, after due consideration of the factual matrix and the applicable legal principles, has passed a comprehensive and well-reasoned order, and prays for dismissal of the present petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have meticulously examined the record with their able assistance. The material available on record, at this stage, prima facie indicates the association of the petitioner with the co-accused and his involvement in the financial transaction, particularly as the petitioner is alleged to have received his share of ₹30,000/- from the amount routed through his account.

A further circumstance weighing against the petitioner is that the co-accused are yet to be arrested. The investigation, therefore, cannot be said to have reached a stage where the custodial interrogation of the petitioner can be ruled out altogether. His custodial examination may be relevant for elucidating the nature and extent of his association with the co-accused, the manner in which the money was received and dealt with, and the role of other persons involved in the alleged transaction.

The fact that the petitioner allegedly transferred a substantial part of the amount received in his account does not, by itself, exonerate him at this stage. The nature of the transaction, the source and destination of the funds, and the petitioner’s precise role and knowledge are matters which require proper investigation and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings for anticipatory bail.

Moreover, the investigation is still in progress and the arrest of the co-accused remains to be effected. Grant of pre-arrest bail at this juncture may impede a fair and effective investigation, particularly when the prosecution seeks to ascertain the inter se role of the accused persons and the complete financial trail. The petitioner has, therefore, failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstance warranting the extraordinary protection of anticipatory bail.

Consequently, having regard to the nature of the allegations, the prima facie association of the petitioner with the co-accused, the pending arrest of the co-accused and the stage and requirements of investigation, this Court is not inclined to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

In light of the final disposition of the captioned matter, all pending miscellaneous and interconnected applications are hereby deemed disposed of. The adjudication of the primary dispute has spent the force of these ancillary proceedings, rendering them infructuous ex facie. Consequently, no independent or supplemental orders are warranted or required in respect thereof.