ANURAG MIDHA STATE OF PUNJAB STATE OF v. VERSUS
Case Details
CRM-M-61174 61174-2025(O&M) 8587 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH (O&M) CRM-M-61174-2025(O&M) RESERVED ON: 17.11.202 .2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 18.11.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 18.11.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 18.11.2025 ANURAG @ANURAG MIDHA ANURAG @ANURAG MIDHA STATE OF PUNJAB STATE OF VERSUS VERSUS .....PETITIONER .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT .....RESPONDENT SURYA PRATAP SINGH CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PRATAP SINGH CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Argued by : Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate for Argued by , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab Ms. Avin Sandhu, Advocate for GMADA. Ms. Avin Sandhu, Advocate for GMADA. SURYA PRATAP SINGH, J (ORAL) SURYA PRATAP SINGH 1. the commission of offence punishable under Sections 406, For the commission of offence punishable under Sections 406, the commission of offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, the FIR No.67 dated 19.07.2025 has 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, the FIR No.67 dated 19.07.2025 has 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, the FIR No.67 dated 19.07.2025 has 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, the FIR No.67 dated 19.07.2025 has been lodged in Police Station Phase-8, District SAS Nagar been lodged in Police Station Phase . Since 8, District SAS Nagar (Mohali). Since oned case, and his the petitioner is apprehending arrest in the abovementioned case, and his the petitioner is apprehending arrest in the abovementi the petitioner is apprehending arrest in the abovementi application for anticipatory bail has been dismissed by the learned application for anticipatory bail has been dismissed by the learned application for anticipatory bail has been dismissed by the learned application for anticipatory bail has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge SAS Nagar (Mohali) Additional Sessions Judge , vide order dated SAS Nagar (Mohali), vide order dated .10.2025, the petitioner is seeking the benefit of anticipatory bail, by 16.10.2025, the petitioner is seeking the benefit of anticipatory bail, by .10.2025, the petitioner is seeking the benefit of anticipatory bail, by .10.2025, the petitioner is seeking the benefit of anticipatory bail, by petitioner is claiming the abovesaid virtue of present petition. The petitioner is claiming the abovesaid petitioner is claiming the abovesaid virtue of present petition. The GAURAV THAKUR 2025.11.19 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-61174 61174-2025(O&M) 8587 2
Legal Reasoning
that prima facie there appears to be a conspiracy on the part of petitioner to that prima facie there appears to be a conspiracy on the part of petitioner to that prima facie there appears to be a conspiracy on the part of petitioner to that prima facie there appears to be a conspiracy on the part of petitioner to that in discharge of its obligation under the licence, confuse the complainant, that in discharge of its obligation under the licence, that in discharge of its obligation under the licence, confuse the complainant the cheques for payment of EDC etc. were issued by the licence holder. the cheques for payment of EDC etc. were issued by the licence holder. the cheques for payment of EDC etc. were issued by the licence holder. the cheques for payment of EDC etc. were issued by the licence holder. Since by any stretch of imagination, the abovementioned act cannot be held Since by any stretch of imagination, the abovementioned act cannot be held Since by any stretch of imagination, the abovementioned act cannot be held Since by any stretch of imagination, the abovementioned act cannot be held to be a bona fide , it is hereby held that the petitioner is not entitled for bona fide act, it is hereby held that the petitioner is not entitled for , it is hereby held that the petitioner is not entitled for any discretionary relief. any discretion 22. In the present case, it is also relevant to mention here that in In the present case, it is also relevant to mention here that in In the present case, it is also relevant to mention here that in er to unearth the conspiracy, which led to filing of cheques issued by order to unearth the conspiracy, which led to filing of cheques issued by er to unearth the conspiracy, which led to filing of cheques issued by er to unearth the conspiracy, which led to filing of cheques issued by proprietorship firm, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is of utmost proprietorship firm, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is of utmost proprietorship firm, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is of utmost proprietorship firm, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is of utmost if the abovementioned opportunity is denied to the necessity, and if the abovementioned opportunity is denied to the if the abovementioned opportunity is denied to the necessity, GAURAV THAKUR 2025.11.19 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-61174 61174-2025(O&M) 8587 10 Investigating Agency, the Investigating Agency Investigating Agency, Agency will not be able to dig- -out the truth. 23. In the present case, any exceptional circumstances warranting exceptional circumstances, warranting does not exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court, does not exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court exist. Thus Thus, it is hereby held that the present and present petition is devoid of merits and present the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the present the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail. the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail. petition is hereby dismissed. petition is hereby 24. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove on the merits of the case. shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. shall not be construed as an expression of opinion shall not be construed as an expression of opinion 25. Since Since Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending the main petition has been dismissed, pending the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. application, if any, is rendered infructuous. application, if any, is rendered infructuous. Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Whether reportable :Yes/No :Yes/No Yes/No : Yes/No GAURAV THAKUR 2025.11.19 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Arguments
concession by invoking the provisions enshrined under Section 482 of the concession by invoking the provisions enshrined under Section 482 of the concession by invoking the provisions enshrined under Section 482 of the concession by invoking the provisions enshrined under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the a complaint, submitted by Chief abovementioned FIR came into being on a complaint, submitted by Chief abovementioned FIR came into being on abovementioned FIR came into being on Administrator, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority Administrator, , hereinafter Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, hereinafter being referred to as ‘GMADA’. The pith and substance of abovementioned being referred to as ‘GMADA’. The pith and substance of abovementioned being referred to as ‘GMADA’. The pith and substance of abovementioned being referred to as ‘GMADA’. The pith and substance of abovementioned Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, complaint is that under the ‘Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, complaint , hereinafter being referred to as ‘PAPR Act’, a licence was issued to 1995’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘PAPR Act’, a licence was issued to , hereinafter being referred to as ‘PAPR Act’, a licence was issued to , hereinafter being referred to as ‘PAPR Act’, a licence was issued to by GMADA. According M/s Chandigarh Royal City Promoters Pvt. Ltd.’ by GMADA. According ‘M/s Chandigarh Royal City Promoters Pvt. Ltd. M/s Chandigarh Royal City Promoters Pvt. Ltd. named to complainant, as per terms and conditions of licence, the above-named to complainant, as per terms and conditions of licence, the above to complainant, as per terms and conditions of licence, the above Company was required to deposit external deve Company lopment charges (EDC), was required to deposit external development charges (EDC), licence fee (LF), and Specialised Investment Fund licence fee (LF), (SIF), with regard to Specialised Investment Fund (SIF), with regard to abovementioned project, but it failed to deposit the due abovementioned project, but and became failed to deposit the dues in time, and became defaulter. The complainant further alleged that in the policy notified by defaulter. The complainant further alleged that in the policy notified by defaulter. The complainant further alleged that in the policy notified by defaulter. The complainant further alleged that in the policy notified by t of Punjab on 28.11.2019, there was a provision for re- Government of Punjab on 28.11.2019, there was a provision for re t of Punjab on 28.11.2019, there was a provision for re Governmen scheduling of defaulted dues of the promoters, and that to avail the benefit of scheduling of defaulted dues of the promoters, and that to avail the benefit of scheduling of defaulted dues of the promoters, and that to avail the benefit of scheduling of defaulted dues of the promoters, and that to avail the benefit of named promoter had sought the benefit of abovementioned policy, the above-named promoter had sought the benefit of named promoter had sought the benefit of abovementioned policy, the above dated cheques of scheduling of defaulted dues, and submitted post-dated cheques of scheduling of defaulted dues, and submitted re-scheduling of defaulted dues, and submitted Rs.3267.62 lacs, along with a covering letter dated Rs.3267.62 lacs duly signed covering letter dated 31.12.2019 duly signed named Company. by the Director of above-named Company. by the Director of above 3. It was It was It was further alleged by further alleged by further alleged by the complainant the complainant the complainant that that that the the the l City abovementioned cheques were bearing a stamp of ‘Chandigarh Royal City abovementioned cheques were bearing a stamp of ‘Chandigarh Roya abovementioned cheques were bearing a stamp of ‘Chandigarh Roya Promoters’ and signed by the proprietor, namely Promoters’ and signed by . According , namely ‘Sumit Bansal’. According to complainant, out of abovementioned cheques, cheques worth Rs.1148.24 to complainant, out of abovementioned cheques, cheques worth Rs.1148.24 to complainant, out of abovementioned cheques, cheques worth Rs.1148.24 to complainant, out of abovementioned cheques, cheques worth Rs.1148.24 GAURAV THAKUR 2025.11.19 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-61174 61174-2025(O&M) 8587 3 lacs were replaced with fresh cheques of Rs.1236.04 vide request letter dated lacs were replaced with fresh cheques of Rs.1236.04 vide request letter dated lacs were replaced with fresh cheques of Rs.1236.04 vide request letter dated lacs were replaced with fresh cheques of Rs.1236.04 vide request letter dated d 26.10.2020, signed by Sumit Bansal, and that 03.06.2020, 14.07.2020 and 26.10.2020, signed by Sumit Bansal, and that d 26.10.2020, signed by Sumit Bansal, and that 03.06.2020, 14.07.2020 an all the abovementioned cheques, presented before the banker for realization, all the abovementioned cheques, presented before the banker for realization, all the abovementioned cheques, presented before the banker for realization, all the abovementioned cheques, presented before the banker for realization, were dishonoured, and therefore, GMADA filed the complaint under Section were dishonoured, and therefore, GMADA filed the complaint under Section were dishonoured, and therefore, GMADA filed the complaint under Section were dishonoured, and therefore, GMADA filed the complaint under Section omplaint failed 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, but the abovementioned complaint failed 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, but the abovementioned c 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, but the abovementioned c for want of any existing liability of the drawer of the cheque. for want of any existing liability of the drawer of the cheque. for want of any existing liability of the drawer of the cheque. 4. By virtue of abovementioned complaint, it was complained by By virtue of abovementioned complaint, it was complained by By virtue of abovementioned complaint, it was complained by named complainant the above-named complainant named complainant the above that with an that with an that with an intention intention intention to cheat to cheat to cheat the the the ly same name was created by complainant, a proprietorship firm having exactly same name was created by complainant, a proprietorship firm having exact complainant, a proprietorship firm having exact and that by the petitioner (accused), and his associate Sumit Bansal etc., and that by the petitioner (accused), and his associate Sumit Bansal etc. the petitioner (accused), and his associate Sumit Bansal etc. projecting that the cheques were issued by the Company to whom licence projecting that the cheques were issued by the Company to whom licence projecting that the cheques were issued by the Company to whom licence projecting that the cheques were issued by the Company to whom licence were was given, the cheques of the proprietorship firm, having similar name, were was given, the cheques of the proprietorship firm was given, the cheques of the proprietorship firm While claiming that by doing so under a common conspiracy, a While claiming that by doing so under a common conspiracy While claiming that by doing so under a common conspiracy issued. While claiming that by doing so under a common conspiracy fraud has been played with GMADA, by the petitioner fraud has been played with GMADA accused, , by the petitioner and his co-accused, the request was made by the complainant to register the FIR, and investigate the request was made by the complainant to register the FIR, and investigat the request was made by the complainant to register the FIR, and investigat the request was made by the complainant to register the FIR, and investigat the case. 5. 6. Heard. tended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner tended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner rime, and is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of c is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of c that the complainant itself is guilty of not that the complainant its own obligations itself is guilty of not discharging its own obligations s trying to take advantage under the terms & conditions of license and that it is trying to take advantage under the terms & conditions of license and that it under the terms & conditions of license and that it of its own wrongs. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the of its own wrongs. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the of its own wrongs. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the of its own wrongs. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the , the petitioner has nothing to do with the cheques issued by ‘Sumit Bansal’, the petitioner has nothing to do with the cheques issued by petitioner has nothing to do with the cheques issued by M/s Chandigarh proprietor of a proprietorship firm having same name, i.e. ‘M/s Chandigarh proprietor of a proprietorship firm having same name, i.e. proprietor of a proprietorship firm having same name, i.e. GAURAV THAKUR 2025.11.19 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-61174 61174-2025(O&M) 8587 4 Royal City Promoters . While claiming that neither the cheque was City Promoters’. While claiming that neither the cheque was . While claiming that neither the cheque was presented before presented before presented before presented before the complainant by the complainant by the complainant by the complainant by the petitioner, nor any false the petitioner, nor any false the petitioner, nor any false the petitioner, nor any false representation was made, the learned counsel for the petitioner has representation was made, the learned counsel for the petitioner has representation was made, the learned counsel for the petitioner has representation was made, the learned counsel for the petitioner has ery is not made contended that any allegations with regard to cheating or forgery is not made contended that any allegations with regard to cheating or forg contended that any allegations with regard to cheating or forg out against the petitioner. out against the petitioner. 7. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also agued that the FIR has been lodged by the complainant while also agued that the FIR has been lodged by the complainant while also agued that the FIR has been lodged by the complainant while also agued that the FIR has been lodged by the complainant while concealing numerous relevant facts, such as the cheques presented before the concealing numerous relevant facts, such as the cheques presented before the concealing numerous relevant facts, such as the cheques presented before the concealing numerous relevant facts, such as the cheques presented before the complainant by Sumit Bansal, who is proprietor of complainant Chandigarh Royal City proprietor of ‘Chandigarh Royal City Promoters’, has nothing to do with the ‘ Promoters Chandigarh Royal City Promoters ‘Chandigarh Royal City Promoters , i.e. the licence holder of the project. According to learned counsel Pvt. Ltd.’, i.e. the licence holder of the project. According to learned counsel , i.e. the licence holder of the project. According to learned counsel , i.e. the licence holder of the project. According to learned counsel was no false representation or writings of for the petitioner since there was no false representation or writings of was no false representation or writings of for the petitioner since there cheques by the petitioner, he cannot be held responsible, and thus cheques by the petitioner, he cannot be held responsible, and thus cheques by the petitioner, he cannot be held responsible, and thus cheques by the petitioner, he cannot be held responsible, and thus prosecuted, for any false representation made by Sumit Bansal. prosecuted, for any false representation made by Sumit Bansal. prosecuted, for any false representation made by Sumit Bansal. 8. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner e also, the dispute between the parties is of civil nature, and that that otherwise also, the dispute between the parties is of civil nature, and that e also, the dispute between the parties is of civil nature, and that that otherwis if there is any default with regard to payment of any if there is any default with regard to payment of any existing liability, on account of licence issued by GMADA in favour of Company of the account of licence issued by GMADA in favour of Company of the account of licence issued by GMADA in favour of Company of the account of licence issued by GMADA in favour of Company of the ner is to file a suit for recovery petitioner, the remedy available to the petitioner is to file a suit for recovery petitioner, the remedy available to the petitio petitioner, the remedy available to the petitio and not a complaint before the police. According to learned counsel for the and not a complaint before the police. According to learned counsel for the and not a complaint before the police. According to learned counsel for the and not a complaint before the police. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, a dispute of civil nature has been given a colour of criminal case, petitioner, a dispute of civil nature has been given a colour of criminal case, petitioner, a dispute of civil nature has been given a colour of criminal case, petitioner, a dispute of civil nature has been given a colour of criminal case, and that abovesaid endeavour that abovesaid endeavour is nothing but arm adopted by is nothing but arm-twisting tactics adopted by the complainant. the complainant. GAURAV THAKUR 2025.11.19 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-61174 61174-2025(O&M) 8587 5 9. learned counsel for the petitioner that It has also been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact the default has been committed by the GMADA itself, as for the in fact the default has been committed by the GMADA itself, as for the in fact the default has been committed by the GMADA itself, as for the in fact the default has been committed by the GMADA itself, as for the purpose of completion of project the basic infrastructure is supposed to be urpose of completion of project the basic infrastructure is supposed to be the basic infrastructure is supposed to be provided by the GMADA, and it has failed to do so. As per learned counsel provided by the GMADA, and it has failed to do so. As per learned counsel provided by the GMADA, and it has failed to do so. As per learned counsel provided by the GMADA, and it has failed to do so. As per learned counsel for the petitioner for the abovesaid purpose, a Civil Writ Petition is already for the petitioner for the abovesaid purpose, a Civil Writ Petition is already for the petitioner for the abovesaid purpose, a Civil Writ Petition is already for the petitioner for the abovesaid purpose, a Civil Writ Petition is already esponding to the pending before this Court since 2019, and that instead of responding to the pending before this Court since 2019, and that instead of r pending before this Court since 2019, and that instead of r the complainant has resorted to frivolous abovementioned writ petition, the complainant has resorted to frivolous the complainant has resorted to frivolous abovementioned writ petition, criminal litigation. criminal litigation. 10. and While alleging that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen, and While alleging that the petitioner is a law ned that nothing is to be recovered from the possession of petitioner, the learned that nothing is to be recovered from the possession of petitioner, that nothing is to be recovered from the possession of petitioner, counsel for the petitioner has argued that no useful purpose would be served counsel for the petitioner has argued that no useful purpose would be served counsel for the petitioner has argued that no useful purpose would be served counsel for the petitioner has argued that no useful purpose would be served titioner is detained in custody. As per learned counsel for the if the petitioner is detained in custody. As per learned counsel for the titioner is detained in custody. As per learned counsel for the titioner is detained in custody. As per learned counsel for the is entitled for petitioner in view of above circumstance, the petitioner is entitled for petitioner in view of above circumstance, the petitioner petitioner in view of above circumstance, the petitioner anticipatory bail. anticipatory bail. 11. abovementioned arguments of learned counsel for the The abovementioned arguments of learned counsel for the abovementioned arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner have been controverted by the learned State Counsel, being petitioner have been controverted by the learned State Counsel, being petitioner have been controverted by the learned State Counsel, being petitioner have been controverted by the learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned counsel for the . It has been contended on complainant. It has been contended on s been acting in a behalf of respondent that the petitioner is a person, who has been acting in a behalf of respondent that the petitioner is a person, who ha behalf of respondent that the petitioner is a person, who ha very clever manner, and with an intention to defraud the complainant, the very clever manner, and with an intention to defraud the complainant, the very clever manner, and with an intention to defraud the complainant, the very clever manner, and with an intention to defraud the complainant, the petitioner in collusion with ‘Sumit Bansal petitioner in collusion with has created proprietorship firm Sumit Bansal’ has created proprietorship firm except the words ‘Pvt. Ltd.’. having exactly same name, except the words ‘Pvt. Ltd.’. having exactly same name 12. el, the cheques in discharge of its As per learned State Counsel, the cheques in discharge of its el, the cheques in discharge of its existing liability with regard to payment of EDC etc. were issued by the existing liability with regard to payment of EDC etc. were issued by the existing liability with regard to payment of EDC etc. were issued by the existing liability with regard to payment of EDC etc. were issued by the proprietorship firm having same name, but those cheques were submitted by proprietorship firm having same name, but those cheques were submitted by proprietorship firm having same name, but those cheques were submitted by proprietorship firm having same name, but those cheques were submitted by GAURAV THAKUR 2025.11.19 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-61174 61174-2025(O&M) 8587 6 the petitioner with a covering letter under his own signatures the petitioner under his own signatures. According . According to to defraud the learned State Counsel, there was a very well-designed plan to defraud the learned State Counsel, there was a very well learned State Counsel, there was a very well complainant, as the cheques were issued by a proprietorship firm having complainant, as the cheques were issued by a proprietorship firm having complainant, as the cheques were issued by a proprietorship firm having complainant, as the cheques were issued by a proprietorship firm having lity against the abovesaid firm. As same name, but there was no existing liability against the abovesaid firm. As same name, but there was no existing liabi same name, but there was no existing liabi en the prosecution against the abovesaid firm per learned State Counsel when the prosecution against the abovesaid firm en the prosecution against the abovesaid firm per learned State Counsel was launched pursuant to dishonour of cheques, the prosecution failed for was launched pursuant to dishonour of cheques, the prosecution failed was launched pursuant to dishonour of cheques, the prosecution failed was launched pursuant to dishonour of cheques, the prosecution failed liability. As per learned State Counsel since Sumit want of any existing liability. As per learned State Counsel since Sumit liability. As per learned State Counsel since Sumit want of any existing nant by the Bansal, the signatory of cheques, was introduced to the complainant by the Bansal, the signatory of cheques, was introduced to the complai Bansal, the signatory of cheques, was introduced to the complai petitioner, the nexus between Sumit Bansal and the petitioner, and their mala petitioner, the nexus between Sumit Bansal and the petitioner, and their mala petitioner, the nexus between Sumit Bansal and the petitioner, and their mala petitioner, the nexus between Sumit Bansal and the petitioner, and their mala proved. While claiming that a false document with an fide intentions, stands proved. While claiming that a false document with an proved. While claiming that a false document with an fide intentions, intention to cheat the complainant has been created, the learned State intention to cheat the complainant has been created, the learned State intention to cheat the complainant has been created, the learned State intention to cheat the complainant has been created, the learned State isted by learned counsel for the complainant, has argued Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has argued isted by learned counsel for the complainant, has argued Counsel, being ass that instant case is not a case, wherein the extraordinary discretion should be that instant case is not a case, wherein the extraordinary discretion should be that instant case is not a case, wherein the extraordinary discretion should be that instant case is not a case, wherein the extraordinary discretion should be exercised in favour of petitioner. exercised in favour of petitioner. 13. 14. The record has been perused carefully. The record has been perused carefully. the present case, there is no A perusal of record shows that in the present case, there is no A perusal of record shows that in denial of the following facts:- denial of the following facts: (i) that there are two entities in the name of (i) Chandigarh Royal that there are two entities in the name of ‘Chandigarh Royal Promoters’. The only difference in the name of above named The only difference in the name of above-named entities is that the older entity is having the word ‘Pvt. Ltd.’ in entities is that the older entity is having the word ‘Pvt. Ltd.’ in entities is that the older entity is having the word ‘Pvt. Ltd.’ in its name, whereas the second one not. its name, whereas the second one not. (ii) that one of the abovementioned two entities is a (ii) private limited that one of the abovementioned two entities is a private limited any, and the later one is a proprietorship firm. company, and the later one is a proprietorship firm. GAURAV THAKUR 2025.11.19 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-61174 61174-2025(O&M) 8587 7 that the petitioner has nothing to do with the proprietorship firm (iii) that the petitioner has nothing to do with the proprietorship firm that the petitioner has nothing to do with the proprietorship firm (iii) igarh Royal City Promoters’, and the known as ‘M/s Chandigarh Royal City Promoters’, and the igarh Royal City Promoters’, and the has nothing proprietor of abovementioned firm ‘Sumit Bansal’ has nothing proprietor of abovementioned firm to do with the Company known as ‘M/s Chandigarh Royal City to do with the Company known as ‘M/s Chandigarh Royal City to do with the Company known as ‘M/s Chandigarh Royal City Promoters Pvt. Ltd.’. that the proprietorship firm had issued cheques in discharge of (iv) that the proprietorship firm had issued cheques in discharge of that the proprietorship firm had issued cheques in discharge of (iv) liability of ‘Pvt. Ltd. Company with regard to EDC etc. and the Pvt. Ltd. Company’ with regard to EDC etc. and the abovesaid cheques were submitted before the complainant with abovesaid cheques were submitted before the complainant with abovesaid cheques were submitted before the complainant with a covering letter of M/s Chandigarh Royal City Promoters Pvt. M/s Chandigarh Royal City Promoters Pvt. Company. Thus, the similarity in name and the covering Ltd. Company. Thus, the similarity in name and the covering Company. Thus, the similarity in name and the covering the officials of GMADA, letter were good enough to confuse the officials of GMADA, letter were good enough to the cheques issued by the proprietorship who presumed that the cheques issued by the proprietorship the cheques issued by the proprietorship cheques issued by the licence holder. firm were in fact the cheques issued by the licence holder. 15. Since the covering letter belongs to the ing letter belongs to the ‘Pvt. Ltd. Company Pvt. Ltd. Company’ it cannot take a stand that it has nothing to do with the cheques, which were cannot take a stand that it has nothing to do with the cheques, which were cannot take a stand that it has nothing to do with the cheques, which were cannot take a stand that it has nothing to do with the cheques, which were used to defraud the complainant. used to defraud the complainant. 16. It is well settled that the Court must be circumspect while It is well settled that the Court must be circumspect while It is well settled that the Court must be circumspect while exercising its power for grant of anticipatory bail exercising and it should not be anticipatory bail, and it should not be granted as a matter of rule. Rather, the law provides granted as a matter of rule that such jurisdiction . Rather, the law provides that such jurisdiction Court is convinced that exceptional should be exercised only when the Court is convinced that exceptional Court is convinced that exceptional should be exercised only when the circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy. circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy. circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy. 17. the present case, at the very outset, it is pertinent to mention In the present case, at the very outset, it is pertinent to mention the present case, at the very outset, it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner is seeking extraordinary remedy by claiming the here that the petitioner is seeking extraordinary remedy by claiming the here that the petitioner is seeking extraordinary remedy by claiming the here that the petitioner is seeking extraordinary remedy by claiming the GAURAV THAKUR 2025.11.19 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-61174 61174-2025(O&M) 8587 8 benefit of anticipatory bail. With regard to such relief, the Hon'ble Supreme benefit of anticipatory bail. With regard to such relief, the Hon'ble Supreme benefit of anticipatory bail. With regard to such relief, the Hon'ble Supreme benefit of anticipatory bail. With regard to such relief, the Hon'ble Supreme . State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine Court in the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine . State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine Court in the case of , has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary SC 282, has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary , has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary , has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that bail is a rule, it cannot; that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is a rule. anticipatory bail is a rule. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned case has 'ble Supreme Court in the abovementioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when ca According lled upon to exercise the to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the said power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of said power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of said power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation. justice and may hamper the investigation. justice and may hamper the investigation. 19. Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Similarly, in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending emedy to a person accused of grave indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave emedy to a person accused of grave indulgence of this extraordinary r offence. 20. Gurbaksh Singh Sibba etc. v. State of Similarly, in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibba etc. v. State of Gurbaksh Singh Sibba etc. v. State of - , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that:- Punjab 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that: Punjab 1980 SCC (2) 565 GAURAV THAKUR 2025.11.19 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-61174 61174-2025(O&M) 8587 9 (i) The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of ordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in ordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only. In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the (ii) In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the nticipatory bail. power to grant anticipatory bail. Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the (iii) Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the investigating agency or a reasonable claim investigating agency or a reasonable claim investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure to secure to secure ived incriminating material from information likely to be received incriminating material from information likely to be rece from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be exercised. 21. If the factual matrix of the present case is analyzed in the light If the factual matrix of the present case is analyzed in the light If the factual matrix of the present case is analyzed in the light esent case, it transpires of above discussed facts and circumstances of the present case, it transpires of above discussed facts and circumstances of the pr of above discussed facts and circumstances of the pr