The High Court
Case Details
CRM-M-568 56864-2025 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUN IN AT CHANDIG F PUNJAB AND HARYANA NDIGARH 223-1 Rajni Singh i Singh CRM-M-56864-202 Decided on : 04.11.202 2025 11.2025 ioner . . . Petitioner State of Ha Haryana ndent . . . Respondent ersus Versus CORAM: AM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SA CE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: SENT: Mr. Zorawar Singh Chauhan, A , Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kanwar Sanjeev Kumar, A mar, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Rahul Yadav, Advocate, fo cate, for the complainant. **** SANJAY V JAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1. The instant petition has been f been filed under Section 482 of BNS f BNSS, 2023 (earli (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), for g , for grant of anticipatory bail to th l to the petitioner, ioner, during the pendency of trial, wh ial, who has been booked in a crimin criminal case arising
Facts
arising out of First Information Report Report, as detailed here-under:- Name of ner(s) Petitioner(s) FIR No. Date Section(s) 200 02.05.2022 406, 420 IPC 3 of HPIDFE IDFE Act, 2013. IPC and Section District ipat Panipat Police Station Model Town Rewari Singh Rajni Singh 2. After hearing the contentions entions at length on 09.10.2025 whi 5 while granting in ting interim anticipatory bail, the foll he following order was passed by th by this Court:- ANIL KUMAR 2025.11.07 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document “ Prayer in this petition, file (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is petitioner, who has been booked i Information Report, as detailed her , filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 20 , is for grant of anticipatory bail to t ked in a criminal case arising out of Fi hereunder:- , 2023 to the f First CRM-M-568 56864-2025 - 2 - Police Station Model Town istrict District ewari Rewari Name and Age of the petitioner(s) Rajni Singh, aged about 56 years Date Section(s) FIR No. 200 02.05.2022 IPC, of of 406, 420 3 1860 Haryana Protection Interest Depositors Financial Establishment Act, (HPIDFE) 2.Allegedly, total 1547 person ha n have been defrauded of the amount unt of Rs.2,85,74,585/- which in fact ha t have been invested by them in Kara Karam Bhumi Real Estate Limited which ich is primarily run by co-accused name namely Manoj Kumar Sengar. As per FIR FIR, there are total 08 accused namely, y, 1. Surinder Kumar; 2. Nirmal Kuma umar 3. Devender Pal; 4. Manoj Kum Kumar Sengar; 5. Vijay Kumar; 6. Pura Puran Prakash; 7. Rajeshwari Sengar; ar; 8. Rajni Singh (the petitioner here herein). Primary allegation against t st the petitioner is that she conspired w ed with the main accused, Manoj Kum Kumar Sengar and other Directors of th f the Company for alluring the people ple to make investment in the Company a ny and then to earn profits alongwith oth h other accused without fulfilling the promi romise. 3. Arguments addressed by counsel nsel for the petitioner is that in fact she w he was Director in the Company uptil the l the year 2011. He further argues that t hat the present FIR was registered in the the year 2022, after more than 11 yea years from the resignation of the petitio etitioner from alleged Company and aft d after resigning from the Company no sal o salary, remuneration, commission etc. h tc. has ever been received by her directly ctly or indirectly from the alleged busine usiness of the Company. Petitioner has ne s neither signed any document, certifica ificate, bond etc. nor a single penny has has been transferred directly in her ba r bank account. 4. He further contends that in the the Board meeting of the Company whi which was held on 4.4.2011 at its regi registered office, resignation letter of t of the petitioner was accepted with imme mmediate effect by authorising one anoth nother person namely, Devender Pal Sing Singh to function as Director in place of t of the petitioner. Counsel also refers to o CRM- to order dated 02.02.2024 passed in CRM M 64412-2023 (Annexure P-8) in ) in reference to co-accused, Devender P er Pal Singh and submits that said accus ccused has also resigned in the year 20 r 2014 ANIL KUMAR 2025.11.07 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-568 56864-2025 - 3 - and by addressing the similar pl r plea, was granted anticipatory bail ail by Coordinate Bench of this Court. C rt. Counsel also refers to the order dat dated 07.05.2025 passed by Coordinate B
Legal Reasoning
ate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-2732 732 of 2025 (Annexure P-10) and submits bmits that one of the main accused name amely, Manoj Kumar Sengar (who is r is related as petitioner’s Jija) has be s been granted interim regular bail to ena enable him to pay back the amount whi which he defrauded from the hundreds of ds of persons. As of now, an amount of R of Rs. 65 lakhs has already been paid b aid back to the concerned complainant( ant(s)/ victims and the said petition is now now listed for 04.11.2025. 5. Further, it is addressed that all t all the offences are maximum punishab ishable for period of 07 years and in view view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Ap Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs il Vs. CBI (2022), 10 SCC 51 and Arne Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 14) 8 SCC 273, there is no special reas reason with the Investigating Officer to ar to arrest the petitioner who is ready to jo to join the investigation and to fully coope operate if protected from arrest. 6. Notice of motion. 7. On advance notice, Mr. Neeraj M raj Madan, Sr. DAG, Punjab, accepts noti notice on behalf of the respondent State a ate and seeks some time to file status repo report in the matter. Mr. Vishal Yada adav by way of filing Memorandum um of Appearance, accepts notice on beha behalf of complainant / victim– Bimla De a Devi. 8. Learned counsel for the State a ate as well as the complainant vehemen mently oppose the prayer for interim ba bail by submitting that the petitioner ner is having her share in the Company pany and by manipulating her status h us has accepted by drawing all the benefit nefits of the fraud committed by the accus ccused persons in connivance with each each other. They further submit that t at the petitioner is in close relationship w ip with the main accused who was Direct irector in the Company having major sha r share in the Company, thus opposes t ses the prayer for grant of anticipatory bai y bail. 9. List alongwith CRM-M-2732 of 2 of 2025 on the date already fixed i.e. i.e. on 04.11.2025. 10. In the meanwhile, the petitioner ioner is directed to join investigation as a as and when required to do so by the Inv e Investigating Agency. In the event of h of her arrest, the petitioner shall be rele released on ad-interim bail, subject to h to her furnishing bail bonds to the sati satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. T r. The petitioner shall also abide by all t all the conditions laid down under Secti ection ANIL KUMAR 2025.11.07 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Sec Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.). 11. Besides, it is directed that peti petitioner would hand over her passport port to CRM-M-568 56864-2025 - 4 - the Investigating Agency or to to Court concerned, if she possess sesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidav fidavit, disclosing the fact that she does n oes not possess any passport. 12. It is also directed that before fore leaving country any time during tri g trial, petitioner would seek prior permiss mission of the Court.” 3. Continuing his submissions an ions and by referring to paragraph 3 o ph 3 of the previou revious order (ibid), learned counsel unsel for the petitioner submits that s that it would be d be a moot question during the co the course of trial as to whether th ther the petitioner h ioner had any active participation o tion or not, particularly when he ha he had already res dy resigned from the company in t y in the year 2011. Learned couns counsel further con er contends that to rebut the said cont d contention, no material or evidence dence is available able with the prosecuting agency agency or the complainant/victim victims. Accordingl rdingly, learned counsel for the petitio petitioner prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned S rned State counsel, assisted by learne learned counsel for sel for the complainant, submits that s that the petitioner is one of the ma he main accused, wh sed, who, along with others, has allege allegedly duped a total of 1547 person persons by defraud efrauding an amount of ₹2,85,74,585 74,585/-. It is submitted that since th ince the allegations ations are not severable, the petitione titioner cannot be treated differently b ently by extending t ding the concession of anticipatory ba ory bail. 5. Despite being repeatedly ask ly asked, no satisfactory response ha nse has been furnis furnished by any of the learned coun counsel for the respondents, includin cluding the compla omplainant/victim, as to how the petit e petitioner could be held liable for th for the alleged frau ed fraud, when she had already resign resigned from the company in the ye the year 2011, wher , whereas the FIR came to be registere gistered after a lapse of about 11 year 1 years. In view of ew of the contentions already record recorded and there being no plausib lausible ANIL KUMAR 2025.11.07 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-568 56864-2025 - 5 - explanation nation forthcoming from the responde pondents to rebut the same. 6. However, learned State couns counsel has filed a status report an ort and, while refer e referring to paragraph No.13 thereof hereof, submits that in compliance wi ce with the order d rder dated 09.10.2025, the petitioner itioner has joined the investigation b tion but has not full ot fully cooperated. I fail to comprehe prehend the stand of the State when n when no satisfactory factory explanation has been forwarde rwarded by the learned State counsel a unsel as to what spe at specific aspect of cooperation is lac n is lacking on the part of the petitione titioner, particularly cularly when no substantial material terial or evidence has been placed o aced on record in th d in this regard. 7 I deem it appropriate to to make the interim order date r dated 09.10.2025 .2025 absolute. However, petition etitioner shall continue to join th oin the investigatio tigation as and when required to do s to do so and abide by all the terms an rms and conditions itions laid down under Section 482(2) 82(2) of BNSS, 2023. 8. Accordingly, petition stands di
Decision
nds disposed of. Misc. application(s), if any, als ny, also stand disposed of. ember 04, 2025 November anil (SANJAY VASHISTH JUDGE ISTH) Whether spe Whether Rep speaking/reasoned: Reportable: Yes/No Yes/No ANIL KUMAR 2025.11.07 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document