CRM-M-32648 218 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Manish Budhwani State of Haryana CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Mr. Kapil Bansal, DAG Haryana. Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for the complainant. VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1. This is the first petition under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. Section 61, 318(4) and 316 (2) BNS 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner not been named in the FIR and he has been implicated on the basis of the second disclosure statement made by co specifically named in the FIR. It is submitted which is made by petitioner and it was only 07.03.2025 that petitioner was arrested on 07.03.2025 and since then the petitioner challan has been presen are 20 witnesses out of which none has been examined and thus the trial is likely to 32648-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of Decision : Manish Budhwani VERSUS Haryana HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kapil Bansal, DAG Haryana. Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for the complainant. -.- VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) This is the first petition under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.22 61, 318(4) and 316 (2) BNS, 2023, at Police Station Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner not been named in the FIR and he has been implicated on the basis of the second disclosure statement made by co-accused Rinku Jethwani @ Mahesh, who specifically named in the FIR. It is submitted that made by the said Rinku on 28.02.2025, nothing was said against the present it was only in the second disclosure statement which was recorded on that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 07.03.2025 and since then the petitioner challan has been presented and the present case is are 20 witnesses out of which none has been examined and thus the trial is likely to -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-32648-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 23.06.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondents VIKAS BAHL Ashit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for the complainant. This is the first petition under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 for 22 dated 01.02.2025 registered under , 2023, at Police Station Cheeka District Kaithal Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner not been named in the FIR and he has been implicated on the basis of the second accused Rinku Jethwani @ Mahesh, who was that in his first disclosure statement, Rinku on 28.02.2025, nothing was said against the present in the second disclosure statement which was recorded on the petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 07.03.2025 and since then the petitioner is inside and the ted and the present case is triable by the Magistrate and ther are 20 witnesses out of which none has been examined and thus the trial is likely to IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH This is the first petition under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 for registered under ict Kaithal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and he has been implicated on the basis of the second was in his first disclosure statement, Rinku on 28.02.2025, nothing was said against the present in the second disclosure statement which was recorded on the petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that the and the e and there are 20 witnesses out of which none has been examined and thus the trial is likely to TRIPTI SAINI 2025.06.24 19:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32648 take time. It is argued that the petitioner is neither partner nor proprietor of the firm namely M/s Shree Ji Enterprises, Ahmedabad, M/s Sona Enterprises, Ahmedabad an Maa Tulja Agortech Pvt. Ltd. Devas, Indor of rice, nor the petitioner has ever purchased or sold the rice to any firm. It is further argued that the petitioner has a firm in the name of M/s Hare Krishna which d with M/s MM Garments and also has a bank account of that firm and the said firm is not involved in any dealing of rice and rather the firm deals in clothes. It is submitted that the petitioner has no role to play in the sale or purchase or obtaining the complainant and there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and complainant and thus the question of the petitioner fraudulently inducing the complainant does not arise. It is further argued that no amount from the firms which are involved in the sale and purchase of the rice was received in the bank account of the petitioner or his firm. It is further submitted that any other criminal 3. Learned State counsel other hand, have in the present case th and Rinku Jethwani Sona Enterprises, Ahmedabad and Maa Tulja Agortech Pvt. Ltd. Devas, Indore respectively. It is submitted that in the second disclosure statement dated 07.03.2025, the co-accused Rinku Jethwani @ Mahesh had implicated the present petiti thus the involvement of the petitioner is also there in cheating amount of Rs.69,41,065/ does not deserve the concession of regular bail. The other aspects how be disputed. 4. Keeping in view the above 32648-2025 (O&M) take time. It is argued that the petitioner is neither partner nor proprietor of the firm namely M/s Shree Ji Enterprises, Ahmedabad, M/s Sona Enterprises, Ahmedabad an Maa Tulja Agortech Pvt. Ltd. Devas, Indore or any other firm involved in the dealing of rice, nor the petitioner has ever purchased or sold the rice to any firm. It is further argued that the petitioner has a firm in the name of M/s Hare Krishna which d with M/s MM Garments and also has a bank account of that firm and the said firm is not involved in any dealing of rice and rather the firm deals in clothes. It is submitted that the petitioner has no role to play in the sale or purchase or obtaining the complainant and there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and and thus the question of the petitioner fraudulently inducing the complainant does not arise. It is further argued that no amount from the firms which re involved in the sale and purchase of the rice was received in the bank account of the petitioner or his firm. It is further submitted that any other criminal case. Learned State counsel as well as the counsel fo other hand, have opposed the present petition for regular bail and has submitted that in the present case the FIR was registered against Pra and Rinku Jethwani, who are proprietors of Shree Ji Enterpri Sona Enterprises, Ahmedabad and Maa Tulja Agortech Pvt. Ltd. Devas, Indore . It is submitted that in the second disclosure statement dated 07.03.2025, accused Rinku Jethwani @ Mahesh had implicated the present petiti thus the involvement of the petitioner is also there in cheating amount of Rs.69,41,065/-. It is submitted that in the said circumstances the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. The other aspects how Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, -2- take time. It is argued that the petitioner is neither partner nor proprietor of the firm namely M/s Shree Ji Enterprises, Ahmedabad, M/s Sona Enterprises, Ahmedabad an or any other firm involved in the dealing of rice, nor the petitioner has ever purchased or sold the rice to any firm. It is further argued that the petitioner has a firm in the name of M/s Hare Krishna which deals with M/s MM Garments and also has a bank account of that firm and the said firm is not involved in any dealing of rice and rather the firm deals in clothes. It is submitted that the petitioner has no role to play in the sale or purchase or obtaining of rice from the complainant and there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and and thus the question of the petitioner fraudulently inducing the complainant does not arise. It is further argued that no amount from the firms which re involved in the sale and purchase of the rice was received in the bank account of the petitioner or his firm. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not involved in as well as the counsel for the complainant, on the opposed the present petition for regular bail and has submitted that e FIR was registered against Prakash, Rajesh Inderlal Lalwani , who are proprietors of Shree Ji Enterprises, Ahmedabad, M/s Sona Enterprises, Ahmedabad and Maa Tulja Agortech Pvt. Ltd. Devas, Indore . It is submitted that in the second disclosure statement dated 07.03.2025, accused Rinku Jethwani @ Mahesh had implicated the present petitioner and thus the involvement of the petitioner is also there in cheating the complainant for an . It is submitted that in the said circumstances the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. The other aspects however could said facts and circumstances, more so the take time. It is argued that the petitioner is neither partner nor proprietor of the firm namely M/s Shree Ji Enterprises, Ahmedabad, M/s Sona Enterprises, Ahmedabad and or any other firm involved in the dealing of rice, nor the petitioner has ever purchased or sold the rice to any firm. It is further eals with M/s MM Garments and also has a bank account of that firm and the said firm is not involved in any dealing of rice and rather the firm deals in clothes. It is submitted of rice from the complainant and there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and and thus the question of the petitioner fraudulently inducing the complainant does not arise. It is further argued that no amount from the firms which re involved in the sale and purchase of the rice was received in the bank account of the petitioner is not involved in r the complainant, on the opposed the present petition for regular bail and has submitted that kash, Rajesh Inderlal Lalwani ses, Ahmedabad, M/s Sona Enterprises, Ahmedabad and Maa Tulja Agortech Pvt. Ltd. Devas, Indore, . It is submitted that in the second disclosure statement dated 07.03.2025, oner and the complainant for an . It is submitted that in the said circumstances the petitioner not more so the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.06.24 19:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32648 fact that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and was also not named in the first disclosure statement of the co and has been 07.03.2025 and also the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 07.03.2025 and the investigation is complete and the challan has been examined out of that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and the case is triable by Magistrate, the present petition for regular bail is allowed and the petitioner is to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate and subject to him not being required in any other case. 5. However, it is made clear that in case, any act is done b threaten the complainant or any of the witnesses, then it would be open to the State to move an application for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner. 6. Nothing stated above shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail application. 7. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of June 23, 2025 tripti 32648-2025 (O&M) the petitioner was not named in the FIR and was also not named in the first disclosure statement of the co-accused Rinku Jethwani @ Mahesh dated subsequently named in the second disclosure statement dated 07.03.2025 and also the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 07.03.2025 and the investigation is complete and the challan has already been presented and no witness examined out of the 20 witnesses and thus, the trial is likely to take time and that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and the case is triable by the present petition for regular bail is allowed and the petitioner is to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate and subject to him not being required in However, it is made clear that in case, any act is done b threaten the complainant or any of the witnesses, then it would be open to the State to move an application for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner. Nothing stated above shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : YES/NO -3- the petitioner was not named in the FIR and was also not named in the first accused Rinku Jethwani @ Mahesh dated 28.02.2025 ubsequently named in the second disclosure statement dated 07.03.2025 and also the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 07.03.2025 and the has already been presented and no witness 20 witnesses and thus, the trial is likely to take time and that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and the case is triable by the present petition for regular bail is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate and subject to him not being required in However, it is made clear that in case, any act is done by the petitioner to threaten the complainant or any of the witnesses, then it would be open to the State to move an application for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner. Nothing stated above shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : YES/NO the petitioner was not named in the FIR and was also not named in the first 28.02.2025 ubsequently named in the second disclosure statement dated 07.03.2025 and also the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 07.03.2025 and the has already been presented and no witnesses 20 witnesses and thus, the trial is likely to take time and that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and the case is triable by ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate and subject to him not being required in y the petitioner to threaten the complainant or any of the witnesses, then it would be open to the State to Nothing stated above shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present TRIPTI SAINI 2025.06.24 19:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document