IN THE 209 Shubham State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE Present :- Mr. Mr. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ The Bharatiya Nagarik petitioner in case Sections 308(2), Police Station HTM, 2. Briefly complaint lodged accused Somnath, petitioner), being on interest against 01.08.2022, upon complainant handed tolas, gold earrings, against which she per month. On presence of her pledged jewellery repeated requests, THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-65148 Date of decision: VERSUS Haryana HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD Mr. Mohit, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paras Talwar, Sr. DAG, Haryana ***** BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant case bearing FIR No. 0629 dated 316(2), 351(3) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya HTM, Hisar District Hisar. Briefly stated, the present FIR came lodged by Meera Devi, wife of Surajbhan Somnath, son of Sanjay Kumar, and being her distant relatives, had advanced against gold ornaments pledged by upon seeking financial assistance handed over to accused Somnath earrings, a mangalsutra, and a gold she received a sum of Rs.70,000/ 01.09.2022, she is stated to have daughter Monika, whereupon Somnath jewellery would be returned within requests, the jewellery was not returned. PUNJAB & HARYANA CHANDIGARH 65148-2025(O&M) decision: 16.02.2026 ...Petitioner ...Respondent VINOD S. BHARDWAJ petitioner. Haryana. filed under Section 482 of the grant of anticipatory bail to the 17.09.2025 registered under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at ame to be registered on the Surajbhan who alleged that and Shubham (the present advanced certain amounts to her by her. It was stated that on assistance for personal needs, the Somnath one gold coin weighing 3 gold ring weighing half a tola, Rs.70,000/- at an agreed interest of 2% have repaid Rs.74,000/- in the Somnath assured her that the a week. However, despite returned. It is further stated that SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.23 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 209 CRM-M-65148-2025(O&M) Somnath subsequently claimed that the agreed rate of interest was 10% per month and continued to demand additional amounts from her. The complainant approached accused No. 2, namely Shubham (the present petitioner), for financial assistance on similar terms. On 10.09.2015, she handed over diamond bangles and gold tops belonging to her daughter Monika, valued at approximately Rs.1,50,000/-, and received Rs.1,20,000/- in return. In June 2024, she is repaid Rs.1,44,000/- (inclusive of principal and interest) to the present petitioner in the presence of her daughter, who recorded a video of the petitioner counting the money. Despite an assurance to return the pledged jewellery within 10–15 days, the same was not returned. It is further alleged that both accused persons ultimately refused to return the jewellery and extended threats to the complainant and her family. The complainant asserted that the accused had exploited her illiteracy and financial vulnerability. On the basis of the written complaint, FIR No. 0629 dated 17.09.2025 was registered under Sections 308(2), 316(2), 3(5), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station HTM Hisar, District Hisar, Haryana. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the present FIR suffers from an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than 3 years. According to the version set out in the complaint, the alleged transactions and refusal to return the jewellery pertain to September 2022, whereas the FIR came to be registered only on 17.09.2025. It is submitted that such prolonged silence on the part of the complainant, without any cogent explanation, casts serious doubt on the veracity and bona fides of the allegations. It is further argued that the offences invoked are SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.23 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 209 CRM-M-65148-2025(O&M) punishable with imprisonment extending up to seven years and do not fall within the category of offences of an exceptionally grave or heinous nature. Counsel contends that the petitioner has clean antecedents and there is nothing on record to suggest that he is likely to abscond. Learned counsel has also submitted that reliance has been placed by the complainant upon a video recording allegedly depicting the petitioner counting money at the time of repayment. However, it is pointed out that the said video clip contains no audible conversation and does not establish the nature of the transaction or any acknowledgment regarding the jewellery in question. He contends that mere visual depiction of counting currency notes cannot, by itself, be construed as proof of criminal intent or participation in the alleged offences. 4. Learned State Counsel however contends that the respondent- complainant had mortgaged her gold ornaments for borrowing a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- from the present petitioner. The complainant eventually paid a sum of Rs.1,44,000/- i.e. the principal amount alongwith the interest. Upon receipt of payment along with the interest, the petitioner herein was required to return the gold ornaments, however, the needful was not done. It is further contended that the complainant persistently approached the petitioner for return of the jewellery and one such instance, where repayment was made, was recorded on video by the complainant’s daughter. The learned State Counsel submits that the petitioner’s contention that the video recording contains no audio and, therefore, lacks evidentiary value, stands contradicted by the specific findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. It is pointed out that during the course of arguments before the said SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.23 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 209 CRM-M-65148-2025(O&M) Court, the video clip was played in open Court, and it was observed that the petitioner could be seen counting currency notes, while the daughter of the complainant was audibly heard requesting the return of the jewellery articles. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has responded to the same by denying the existence of the said video in its entirety. 6. I am afraid that a complete denial itself cannot be accepted by this Court, in light of the specific finding recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar who has seen and heard the audio and video. Significantly, even during the course of arguments before this Court, no plausible explanation has been offered by the petitioner as to the circumstances under which the respondent–complainant is alleged to have paid the sum in question. In the absence of any satisfactory account of the transaction, and keeping in view the prima facie material noticed by the Court below, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner does not inspire confidence at this stage. 7. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the FIR has been registered after a delay is concerned, in circumstances where a person borrows money, by way of a mortgage, he is always under a subjugating fiduciary relationship with the person from whom such financial aid is sought. The borrower, often placed in a vulnerable position, acts upon the assurances extended by the lender for return of the pledged articles upon repayment. In such circumstances, the fact that the complainant may have continued to repose trust on the assurances of the petitioner for a certain period would not, by itself, be construed as fatal to the prosecution case. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.23 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 209 CRM-M-65148-2025(O&M) Mere delay, when reasonably attributable to repeated promises, persuasion, or the expectation of amicable settlement, does not ipso facto demolish the substratum of the allegations. The law does not permit the accused to capitalize upon the trust reposed by the complainant and thereafter invoke delay as a shield against investigation. Each case must be assessed on its own facts, and where the delay stands reasonably explained by the surrounding circumstances and the nature of the relationship between the parties, it cannot be treated as a ground to discredit the complaint at the threshold. 8. Adverting to the submission that the petitioner has clean antecedents and that the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment extending up to seven years, I am of the opinion that such factors, though relevant, are not determinative in themselves. The absence of prior criminal history does not, by itself, vest an indefeasible right in favour of an accused to claim the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail.The grant of anticipatory bail is not to be treated as a matter of routine but is to be assessed in the backdrop of the totality of circumstances, including the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, the requirement of custodial interrogation and the potential impact on the investigation. The gravity of the accusation and the prima facie material available on record must weigh with the Court while balancing the competing interests of personal liberty and the societal interest in a fair and effective investigation. 9. So far as the contention about the offences been punishable upto 7 years, the mandate under the Old Code was that such person should SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.23 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 209 CRM-M-65148-2025(O&M) not ordinarily be arrested unless there are circumstances justified for such a arrest. In the present case, the recovery of the pledged jewellery articles is yet to be effected. The petitioner has taken a categorical stand denying the very substratum of the transaction, notwithstanding the prima facie material in the form of a video recording reflecting him counting currency notes at the time of alleged repayment. In such circumstances, where the existence of the transaction itself is being denied and the case property remains unrecovered, effective investigation would necessarily require confronting the petitioner with the material on record and eliciting information regarding the whereabouts of the jewellery. 10. The investigation, therefore, cannot be said to have reached a stage where custodial interrogation is rendered redundant. On the contrary, the recovery of the alleged case property and ascertainment of the true nature of the transaction are aspects which, at this juncture, justify the investigating agency’s request for custodial interrogation. 11. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. 12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 16.02.2026 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Sumit Gusain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.23 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document