Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 93712 (PNJ)

LALIT v. STATE OF HARYANA

CRM-M/46133/2025 · 2025-08-22

Subhas Mehla

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-46133-2025 1 103 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-46133-2025 Date of decision: 22.08.2025 LALIT ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Mr. Pulkit Sethi, Advocate and Mr. Divjot Singh Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Sr.DAG, Haryana. **** SUBHAS MEHLA , J (Oral): 1. Petitioner has filed petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.401, dated 23.10.2023, under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station Sector-40, Gurugram. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He himself is a victim who was defrauded by the other co-accused as he himself invested the money and he is not required for any custodial interrogation and prayed for bail. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Sr.DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. Learned State counsel submits that the name of the present petitioner figures up in the FIR that he is one of the accomplices of the accused who collected a huge amount on the promise of providing 18 % return and collected huge amount within 15 days and fled MONIKA RANI away with hard earned money of the complainant. 2025.08.27 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-46133-2025 2 5. Heard. 6. Keeping in view the allegations against the present petitioner as his name figures in the initial complaint moved by the complainant which resulted into registration of FIR and allegation against him that he actively participated in the commission of offence, his custodial interrogation is required to collect the evidence and to recover the embezzled amount, therefore, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Present petition is accordingly dismissed. (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE 22.08.2025 monika 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes /No 2. Whether reportable : Yes /No MONIKA RANI 2025.08.27 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document