AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARHIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH Moshin Khan @ Mohsinullakhan A Pathan
….Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana
….Respondent
Date of Decision: Date of Decision:September 23, 2026September 23 Date of Uploading:Date of Uploading: September 23, 2026September 23 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOELHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana. Mr. Pratham Bali, Advocate for the complainant.
*****
SUMEET GOELSUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
Present 2nd petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 438 Cr. P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.0211 dated 05.08.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Sector-53, District Gurugram.
First plea for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh, on the same cause of action, after removing the discrepancies which have, inadvertently, occurred in the petition, vide order dated 14.09.2026 passed in CRMCRMCRM---MMM---5204352043---20262026.
For the sake of ease, relevant factual milieu is drawn from the order dated 31.08.2026 passed by the concerned learned Sessions Judge (whereby anticipatory bail plea of the petitioner was rejected), reads thus:
“2.As per Police report, the complainant company namely M/s Luxury Ride Global Pvt. Ltd. through its authorized representative Mr. Vikram submitted a complaint against Ashwin Sharma, Amrit Manoj Talati, Mohd. Wasim and Ashik Khan that complainant’s company is engaged in the business of buying and selling of pre owned luxury cars and is well renowned in its field. In the month of January, 2024, Ashwin Sharma approached the complainant’s company through online inquiry in connection with sale car make Jaguar Land Rover F-Pace Car. He represented himself as cousin of Amrit Talati who the registered owner of the said car. After physical inspection, the complainant’s company made an offer of Rs.48,20,000/- to Ashwin Sharma. On insistence of the officials of the complainant’s company, he made the officials of the complainant’s company speak with Amrit Manoj Talati to confirm the sale of the car at the said price. Ashwin Sharma informed that original Registration Certificate was not available as it was under process in the office of RTO, Vadodara, Gujrat and that he would provide all the necessary documents for processing the sale and transfer of ownership of the vehicle. On the asking of Ashwin Sharma and Amrit Manoj Talati the complainant’s company transferred Rs.46 Lakhs out of the total sale consideration of Rs.48,20,000/- in the account of ‘M/s Geetanshi Steel Industries’ which was the alleged partnership firm of Amrit Manoj Talati. The balance amount of Rs.2,20,000/- was agreed to be paid on providing the Registration Certificate and signed forms to be submitted to the Registration Transport Office by Ashwin Sharma and Amrit Manoj Talati. Ashwin Sharma again informed the officials of the complainant’s company that RC of the car and NOC of the bank was currently with RTO and will be provided within the period of 15-20 days. He provided the photocopy of NOC dated 2.11.2023 purported to be issued by Bank of Baroda in connection with car in question. Thereafter, physical possession of the car was handed over to the complainant’s company on 12.01.2024. An amount of Rs.46 Lakhs was transferred by the complainant’s company in the bank account of ‘M/s Geetanjali Steel Industries’ on 12.01.2024 via RTGS. It is further averred that prior to the ale of car, the complainant’s company spent an amount of approximately Rs.5 Lakhs towards the repair and maintenance of the car to ensure that it was market worthy as a new buyers was ready and willing to purchase the car. The complainant’s company again inquired with Ashwin Sharma who introduced Mohd. Wasim as an agent working with RTO Ahmedabad and he assured that the said person will assist in getting registration certificate from RTO and updating the same in the RTO. However, after sometime, Mohd Wasim stopped responding to the call made by the officials of complainant’s company. When Ashwin Sharma was again contacted, he introduced another agent namely Aashik Kumar. On the instructions of Ashwani Sharma and Aashik Kumar, the complainant company paid applicable municipal Tax amounting to Rs.47,536/- which was payable on the transfer of ownership from seller to new buyer. The complainant also paid transfer/commission fee amounting to Rs.15,000/-. However, even after the payment, complainant’s company did not receive any response from Aashik Khan and he started ignoring all the calls made to him. Thereafter, officials of complainant company realized that there was nothing but another attempt to harass the complainant and its officials. When the officials of the complainant company tried calling Ashwin Sharma for RC and other transfer documents, he stopped responding to the calls from the complainant company. In view of the said facts, complainant company deputed one of its official to visit Vadodara and meet with Mohd. Wasim and Aasik Khan and also to inquire from Amrit Manoj Talati to ascertain the true facts. When the officials of the complainant company visited the office of Amrit Manoj Talati, they were informed that he was not available as he has committed suicide 11 months prior thereto. Further on inquiry from Bank of Baroda, it came to be known that NOC provided to the complainant company by the accused persons was forged and had not been issued by the bank. There was outstanding loan of Rs.17 Lakhs which was taken by Amrit Manoj Talati. The official of complainant company tried to visit the residential address of Ashwin Sharma which was mentioned in his Aadhar Card but it was found that he was no longer residing on the said address. Thus, it was averred that accused had committed fraud of Rs.51,62,536/- with the complainant company. Accordingly the present FIR was registered.”
Learned counsel has submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are wholly concocted, improbable and devoid of any merits. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the FIR in question. It has further been contended that the petitioner has been implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused – Kartar Singh @ Cheenu, which per se is not admissible in law and cannot be made the basis to show complicity of the petitioner in the offence in question. Learned counsel has further iterated that merely some amount was transferred in the account of the brother of the petitioner, cannot be a ground to infer mala fide intention on their part.
Learned counsel has urged that co-accused of the petitioner have already been extended the concession of bail. It has been further argued that co-accused – Kartar Singh alias Chuinu has been extended the concession of regular bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 29.09.2025 passed in CRM-CRM--MMM---52061-52061--20252025 as the matter has been resolved amicably between the complainant and the said co-accused. Learned counsel has argued that since the matter has been amicable settled with the complainant, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.
Learned counsel has argued that proclamation proceedings have also been initiated against the petitioner, vide order dated 28.07.2026 and the matter is pending for 30.09.2026 before the Court below for the presence of the petitioner.
Learned counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation. It has been urged that given the aforesaid factual matrix, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, grant of the instant petition is prayed for.
Learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned State counsel has argued that the petitioner, along with his co-accused, has committed fraud with the complainant. It has been further argued that investigation, in the present case, is still under way and the petitioner is yet to be arrested. Given the nature of allegations, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable. It has been contended that, in case, the petitioner is accorded the concession of anticipatory bail, there is all likelihood that the petitioner may abscond from the process of justice as also influence/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses. Thus, the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the complainant has also vehemently opposed the grant of petition in hand by arguing that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. It has been iterated that the petitioner along with his co-accused had committed fraud with the complainant for a substantial amount. It has been argued that, thus, the petitioner ought not to be granted the concession of anticipatory bail. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition in hand is entreated for.
I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.
As per the prosecution case, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. A perusal of the prosecution case, as well as the material available on record, prima facie, reveals that the petitioner is alleged to be the starting link in the fraudulent transactions. It is alleged that the petitioner, along with his brother, provided the vehicle in question to Ashwani Sharma and Kartar Singh @ Cheenu for a consideration of ₹40,10,000/-. Thereafter, co-accused – Kartar Singh @ Cheenu allegedly sold the said vehicle to Ashwin Sharma for ₹41,50,000/-. Out of the sale consideration, an amount of ₹10,50,000/- was directly transferred into the account of the petitioner’s brother, namely, Mohin Khan, while a further amount of ₹1,00,000/- was allegedly transferred through ATM. It is further the case of the prosecution, on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused – Kartar Singh @ Cheenu, that an amount of ₹28,60,000/- was paid by him in cash to the petitioner and his brother. The prosecution further alleges that the petitioner and his brother were aware that the original owner of the vehicle had already expired and that a bank loan of approximately ₹70 lakhs was outstanding against the said vehicle. Despite having such knowledge, they allegedly proceeded with the transaction and facilitated the subsequent sale of the vehicle. Thus, according to the prosecution, the petitioner and his brother were not merely recipients of the sale consideration, but were allegedly actively involved in the fraudulent transaction and were party to the criminal conspiracy, thereby causing wrongful loss not only to the complainant but also to the concerned bank.
Keeping in view the factual milieu of the case in hand; particularly the manner in which the petitioner and his co-accused allegedly committed fraud with the complainant; this Court, prima facie, finds that the petitioner does not deserve the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail.
The other pleas raised by the petitioner, including those of false implication etc., are matters to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence during the course of trial. Such disputed questions of fact(s) cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of consideration of the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail.
The co-accused of the petitioner have been granted the concession of regular bail; however, the petitioner seeks the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. The considerations and parameters governing grant of regular bail are distinct from those applicable to the grant of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petitioner cannot claim parity with his co-accused merely on the ground that they have been granted regular bail.
Further, the factum of the complainant having settled the matter with the co-accused does not ipso facto warrant grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Moreover, proclamation proceedings have already been initiated against the petitioner.
No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR.
It is befitting to mention here that while considering plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wider impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that a prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and the preliminary investigation appear to establish reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. A profitable reference in this regard is being made to the dicta passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 :v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039, the Supreme Court held as under, relevant whereof reads as under:
“6.We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.”
The material which has come on record, the preliminary investigation and seriousness of the allegations, appear to establish a reasonable basis for their accusation. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismisseddismissed.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.