High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 09 P&H CK 0183

Navneet Singla vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 3 September 2026 · Citation: 2026:PHHC:124702

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shalini Singh Nagpal, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CRM-M-49610-2026 (O&M)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 633 words

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.

1.

Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.106 dated 25.07.2026, under Sections 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Sector-5, District Panchkula. This is the first petition for anticipatory bail.

2.

Sanjay Bansal, Accounts Officer, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula lodged the FIR stating that Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (HSAMB) received an envelope/welcome kit dated 26.02.2026 in respect of a new bank account and customer identification at Bank of Baroda, Sector-11 Panchkula, though the account did not belong to HSAMB and was not opened by HSAMB or any of its field office. Signatures of the competent authority were forged to open the account, without approval and authorization from the competent authority, with mala fide intention to misuse the name of HSAMB for wrongful financial transactions.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits petitioner was a professional consultant engaged in liaising and financial consultancy work. He had no involvement in the fraudulent opening or operation of the bank account and was falsely implicated on account of his professional acquaintance with the Branch Manager. No specific overt act of forgery or signature on any document was attributed to the petitioner, who was named along with 3 other persons Ankur Sharma, Ribhav Rishi and Rakesh Kumar without assigning any specific role. Petitioner had joined investigation and made statement before the Investigating Officer, on record as Annexure P2. His role was limited to introducing Ankur Sharma to the Bank for opening bank account which was closed just after 2-3 days, without any finaincial transaction. Main accused Ankur Sharma had been arrested and petitioner who had clean antecedents, undertook to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent State and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail submitting that case vide FIR No.0004 dated 23.02.2026 under Sections 13(2), 13(1), 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340 and 61 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was registered with regard to large scale embezzlement to the tune of Rs.625 crore and it was not a case of innocent opening of account by co-accused Ankur Sharma who was introduced by the petitioner. The account was opened to adjust proceeds of embezzlement. As per disclosure statements of Ankur Sharma and Ribhav Rishi, the account was opened in the name of HSAMB to conceal the amount embezzled and petitioner who had acquaintance in banking sector, was asked to search for scheme saving account which he identified in Bank of Baroda, Sector-11 Panchkula. It was a well orchestrated scheme. Copies of the disclosure statement of co-accused have been placed on record.

6.

Liberty of an individual is no doubt precious, it has to be balanced with the statutory right of the investigating agency to conduct proper, fair and effective investigation. Liberty of an accused may be curtailed to enable the investigating agency to effectively investigate and develop its case. Concession of anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of course or routine, unless there are exceptional grounds made out. Considering the material which has surfaced during investigation of the FIR, custodial interrogation of the petitioner regarding the modus operandi, the preparation made and the involvement of others is required. Though, petitioner is not named in the FIR, his custodial interrogation is deemed imperative in the facts and circumstances of the case to unearth the larger conspiracy and to elicit useful information.

7.

Grant of anticipatory bail, at this stage, would seriously prejudice the statutory investigational powers of the police. Considering all relevant facts and circumstances of the case but without commenting on the merits, the petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed.

8.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.