CRM-M-35547-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 216 CRM-M-35547-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.08.2025 Vinod Kumar .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present: Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sehej Sandhawalia, Advocate and Mr. Himanshu Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Vasundhra Dalal Anand, Sr. DAG, Haryana assisted by ASI Neeraj. **** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J.(Oral) 1. Petitioner is praying for regular bail in case FIR No.111 dated 04.03.2018 registered under Sections 406, 420, 204 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and Section 3 of Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in the Financial Establishment Act, 2013 at Police Station Sector 31, District Faridabad. 2. The present case was registered on the basis of complaint given to the police by Gopal Sharma with the allegations that he knew one Vinod Garg (petitioner), who told him that Anil Jindal (Chairman, SRS Group), is his nephew and he is carving out plots & constructing flats and he can invest some amount and the prices will increase manifold and during this period, he will get an interest of 1.5 per cent per month on his investment. On his Rajeev Purohit 2025.08.13 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35547-2025 2 allurement, he invested Rs.5 lakhs in the year 2015 and lateron, he came to know that the accused have taken crores of rupees from thousands of people and have cheated them. To repay the amount, he was given a cheque of Rs. 6.5 lakhs on behalf of M/s SRS Build Mart Private Limited which was signed by one of their security guard Davinder Adhana, who was shown as a full time Director under his signature but the cheque got dishonoured and he has been cheated. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He was a Director in SRS Limited and had also resigned from the said company on 06.02.2017. He has never been a Director of SRS Real Infrastructure Limited and M/s Swami Hightech Projects Limited and he cannot be arrayed as an accused merely because he happened to be the Director of one of the sister company upto February 2017. He was also not named in the FIR. Numerous FIR’s have been registered against him and he has already been released on bail by Co- ordinate Benches of this Court, details of which are as under: Sr. No. FIR No. Dated Case No. Decision 1. 238 13.04.2018 CRM-M-64472-2024 Allowed 2. 542 11.09.2018 CRM-M-15280-2021 Allowed 3. 43 23.01.2020 CRM-M-15228-2021 Allowed 4. 117 04.03.2018 CRM-M-15273-2021 Allowed 5. 213 06.04.2018 CRM-M-53948-2021 Allowed 6. 214 06.04.2018 CRM-M-53873-2021 Allowed 7. 215 06.04.2018 CRM-M-52083-2021 Allowed 8. 216 06.04.2018 CRM-M-17796-2021 Allowed 9. 231 11.04.2019 CRM-M-52057-2021 Allowed 10. 260 21.04.2021 CRM-M-15318-2021 Allowed 11 542 11.09.2018 CRM-M-15280-2021 Allowed 12 43 23.01.2020 CRM-M-15228-2021 Allowed 13 273 26.04.2018 CRM-M-63965-2024 Allowed Rajeev Purohit 2025.08.13 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35547-2025 3 14 489 10.08.2018 CRM-M-5178-2025 Allowed 15 217 06.04.2018 CRM-M-63962-2024 Allowed 16 121 06.04.2018 CRM-M-2345-2025 Withdrawn 17 200 17.05.2019 CRM-M-2263-2025 Withdrawn 18 123 04.03.2018 CRM-M-2261-2025 Withdrawn 19 153 09.05.2021 CRM-M-4706-2025 Withdrawn 20 206 05.04.2018 CRM-M-5930-2025 Withdrawn 21 114 04.03.2018 CRM-M-2264-2025 Withdrawn 22 111 04.03.2018 CRM-M-4005-2025 Withdrawn 23 51 17.02.2019 CRM-M-3952-2025 Withdrawn 24 205 05.04.2018 CRM-M-2337-2025 Allowed 4. Learned counsel further contended that trial will take sufficiently long time to conclude and his further detention is not required and the petitioner may be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel & perused the paper-book. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of bail. 6. The petitioner is in custody since 31.01.2025. All the main accused who have been named in the FIR have already been released on regular bail. The entire case is based on documentary evidence, which has already been collected and are a part of the final report which has already been presented before the trial Court. As to whether petitioner could be impleaded as an accused without being Director or in any way responsible for the day to day affairs and conduct of the business of the company shall also be a moot question during the trial. In these circumstances, further detention of the petitioner is not required. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid factual position, but without commenting anything upon the merits of the case, the petition is allowed & petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate Rajeev Purohit 2025.08.13 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35547-2025 4 concerned, on usual terms and conditions. 11.08.2025 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) Rajeev (rvs) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Rajeev Purohit 2025.08.13 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document