Shubham Gupta vs State Of Haryana

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (Oral).

The prayer in the present petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) is for the grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.650 dated 29.09.2025, registered at Police Station HTM, Hisar, District Hisar, under Section 318(4) of the BNS.

The FIR in question was registered on the basis of a complaint made by Krishan Kumar Sharma, resident of House No. B- 143, Marvel City, Talwandi Rana, Hisar, seeking legal action against Jagmohan son of Satyanarayan; Satyanarayan son of Sant Lal; Shubham Gupta; Himanshu Gupta; Neelam wife of Yashvir (6) Yashvir Gupta. As per the complainant, he was defrauded of a total amount of Rs.40,00,000 by the accused persons through deceit and false promises of transferring immovable property in his favour. It was alleged that he runs an office under the name "Sehyog Tour & Travel" at Railway Road, Red Square Market, Hisar. Near his office, the accused persons were operating a stock market business under the name "Sectorial Analysis." Accused Jagmohan and Shubham Gupta frequently visited the complainant's office. Between 26.05.2023 and 25.07.2023, accused Jagmohan and Shubham Gupta, along with Satyanarayan (father of Jagmohan), induced the complainant to invest money for expansion of their business. Acting upon their representations, the complainant paid a total sum of Rs.30,00,000/-, out of which Rs.3,50,000/- was paid in cash on 29.05.2023 and the remaining amount was transferred online/through RTGS into the account of a firm named "Sectorial Analysis." In consideration thereof, the accused persons promised to transfer a 180 square yard plot situated in Shyam Vihar Extension in favour of the complainant. An affidavit dated 29.05.2023 (No. HO292023E37) was executed in this regard. In February 2024, the accused persons stopped paying the agreed interest, which raised suspicion in the mind of the complainant. Upon inquiry, he discovered that the said plot had already been sold to another person. When confronted, the accused again induced the complainant by promising to transfer a 120 square yard house situated in New Bharat Nagar, Bhiwani, allegedly covered under Will No. 11438 dated 14.02.2019, Tehsil and District Bhiwani. They demanded an additional Rs.10,00,000/- and assured that the remaining Rs.5,00,000/- would be paid at the time of registration. Believing their representations, the complainant paid Rs.10,00,000/- in cash on 02.04.2024, thereby making a total payment of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rs.13,50,000 in cash and Rs.26,50,000/- through online/RTGS transfers). An agreement bearing No. HOB2024D437 dated 02.04.2024 was also executed in this regard. It was further agreed that the house would be registered in the name of the complainant's son upon payment of the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. On 10.10.2024, the complainant reached the Tehsil office with a cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- along with stamp duty and registration expenses. However, except for accused Jagmohan, none of the other accused appeared before the Registrar. The complainant thereafter marked his presence before the Notary Public and got an affidavit prepared on the same day. Upon verification of records pertaining to Vasika No. 11438 dated 14.02.2019, it was revealed that the property was not exclusively owned by Shubham Gupta but was jointly held in the names of Shubham Gupta, Himanshu Gupta, and Neelam. The complainant subsequently came to know that the accused persons had allegedly formed a group and were cheating members of the public by falsely promising to sell plots and houses. It was thus alleged that the accused persons dishonestly induced the complainant and cheated him of a Rs.40,00,000/-.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that a pure and simple civil dispute has been given the colour of a criminal case. He submits that the petitioner and the complainant were in a commercial relationship and after the petitioner suffered losses in 2024, he could not pay the requisite interest, as a result of which, various cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short `the N.I. Act’) were filed besides registration of the FIR in question. It is further submitted that the petitioner is willing to join investigation and abide by any condition imposed by the Court.

Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for the grant of anticipatory bail stating that keeping in view the nature of the allegations, custodial interrogation would be imperative. They submit that the petitioner is involved in a large number of cases and around 23 complaints under the NI Act have been filed against him and apart from that, there is another FIR registered against him with similar allegations.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

The dispute may appear to be civil in nature on the face of it, but if one delves little deep into the matter, it emerges that a huge amount was invested by the complainant with the petitioner on his promise to give high returns. Not only this, an agreement to sell was executed on 05.04.2024 by the petitioner with the son of the complainant, whereby he agreed to sell a plot measuring 120 square yards, while representing himself to be the absolute owner thereof. The total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.45 lakhs, but subsequently, when the sale deed was not executed and the petitioner was joined in investigation under the orders passed by a Coordinate Bench, the stand taken by the petitioner was that he was owner only to the extent of 25% of the said property.

In the agreement to sell, the petitioner had portrayed himself to be the actual owner of the property, whereas according to him, he was owner only to the extent of 25%. The complainant is stated to have been cheated of Rs.40 Lakhs by the petitioner, apart from the execution of agreement to sell etc.

Keeping in view the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and his antecedents, this Court does not find any reason to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

That being so, the present petition is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.