Vansh Kapoor vs State of Haryana

MANISHA BATRA, J :-

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No. 185 dated 12.05.2026 registered under Section 318(4) and 61 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') at Police Station Krishna Gate, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint lodged by the complainant Kiran Lata, alleging that her son was desirous of starting the business of making silver utensils. She had sought the advice of accused Avinash, who was running a jewellery shop in the name of Goldy Jewellers and was acquainted with her for a long time. Accused Avinash, his son Vansh Kapoor, i.e. the present petitioner and Meenakshi, wife of accused Avinash, allured the complainant by representing that they would facilitate and assist her in procuring silver of pure quality. They told her that they would procure silver at reasonable rates from the same person from Delhi from whom they used to purchase silver. On being induced by them, the complainant made payment of a sum of Rs.1 crore to the petitioner and the co-accused in pursuance of an oral agreement between the complainant and the accused persons for supply of one quintal of silver to her. The petitioner and the co-accused had given 25 kgs of silver bricks each on 10.07.2025, 15.07.2025, 06.08.2025 and 21.07.2025, respectively. However, after some time, when the son of the complainant tried to get silver utensils manufactured from the same, the said silver bricks were found to be counterfeit/fake.

As per the further allegations, on asking the complainant, they started making excuses and thereafter, on 16.10.2025, they told the complainant and her son that they had been cheated at the hands of the person who had supplied the silver bricks to them from Delhi. They assured to give a sum of Rs.1 crore 25 lakhs or 62.50 kgs of genuine silver. An acknowledgement receipt was also made in writing on the letterhead of the accuse, and the petitioner and the co-accused had signed the same. They delivered 15 kg of genuine silver to the complainant on 18.10.2025 and in lieu thereof, took back 15 kg of the counterfeit silver bricks and undertook to return the same. However, subsequently, they failed to deliver the balance quantity of silver except 6.65 kg and started extending threats to the complainant and her son.

After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. It was revealed that the shop in the name of Goldy Jewellers was taken on lease in the name of the present petitioner. It was also revealed that the bank account in which the money was deposited by the victim was also in the name of the petitioner. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of pre-arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, which was dismissed vide order dated 16.06.2026.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. His father is engaged in the business of jewellery under the name and style of M/s Goldy Jewellers and M/s Old Vikas Jewellers. His father had agreed to assist the complainant solely as a facilitator in consideration of commission of 0.01% of the total sale consideration of silver. Since he himself was not in a position to supply a substantial quantity of silver to the complainant. He had introduced the son of the complainant to Vipul Mandalam, a silver dealer having his shop at Delhi. The consignment was delivered at the shop of the father of the petitioner and was personally received by the complainant without raising any objection qua the quality and purity of the silver. On 20.07.2025, the son of the complainant had approached the father of the petitioner with a request to provide 20 kgs of silver on credit basis, which was accordingly given. Subsequently, 20 kgs of silver was again given in November 2025. When the father of the petitioner demanded payment of the outstanding amount from the complainant and her son, they refused to make the payment and falsely implicated them in the present case. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. He is a 19 year old student and is not involved in the said business. It is his father who has been carrying on the said business. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the allegations are serious in nature. He, in connivance with his parents, i.e. the co-accused, had induced the complainant to purchase silver bricks through him. The bricks so purchased were found to be fake. In fact, these bricks were bearing the stamp of Goldy Jewellers, meaning thereby that they belonged to the petitioner and the co-accused. An amount of Rs.1 crore and 18 lakh were deposited by the complainant in a bank account jointly held in the name of the petitioner and his father. For conducting proper investigation and for recovery of the money, his custodial interrogation is must. No exceptional or extraordinary circumstance has been made out in favour of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have caused wrongful loss of a huge amount of money to the complainant by supplying fake and counterfeit silver bricks. After taking an amount of Rs.1 crore, he, along with the co-accused, is also shown to have executed a writing on the letterhead of his shop, thereby undertaking to return 62.50 kgs of silver on the specified dates. He has not denied his signatures on this document. The allegations against him are specific and serious in nature. His connivance with the co-accused in the commission of the offence of cheating is prima facie made out. For the purpose of conducting thorough investigation in the matter, his custodial interrogation is must. In case his custodial interrogation is denied to the investigating agency, the same will leave many glaring loopholes and gaps adversely affecting the investigation. The court is also required to see that an order of anticipatory bail does not operate as inroad in the normal legal procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court. It is well settled that powers for grant of anticipatory bail are to be exercised in exceptional and extra ordinary circumstances. However, in the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.