CRM-M No.37860 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 108 CRM-M No.37860 of 2026 Date of decision: 14.07.2026 Tejpal Garg ... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Harshit Jangra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Apoorv Garg, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. Ms. Pooja Jaglan, Advocate, for the complainant. ---- MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail in the FIR mentioned below:- FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 373 13.12.2025 Civil Line Kaithal, District Kaithal 316(2), 318(4) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNS”) MANJU 2026.07.15 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.37860 of 2026 -2- 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR has been registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the complainant Shiva Khanijo alleging therein that he was proprietor of M/s Amba Grain Pvt. Ltd. company engaged in the business of trading in rice. His company has agreed to sell premium rice of a premium brand named as Jhalak Premium Brand to the petitioner and his sons who are running a firm under the name of Shym Overseas, through brokers Abhishek Sharma and Varun Jain. Rice having worth of Rs.37,80,000/- was sent to the petitioner and his sons on 13.11.2025 and 16.11.2025 through two different vehicles. Payment was agreed to be made by the petitioner within ten days. However, after receipt of rice, the petitioner and his sons did not make payment of the due amount rather they switched off their mobile phones. The complainant came to know that the petitioner and his sons had sold the supplied bags of rice to one Sanni Mehta proprietor of Mahadev Enterprises firms in connivance with the brokers with intent to cause wrongful loss to the complainant with criminal intent. As such, the complainant prayed for taking action in the matter. 3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of pre arrest bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide order dated MANJU 2026.07.15 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.37860 of 2026 -3- 09.07.2026. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The ingredients for commission of offence punishable under Section 316(2) of BNS have not at all attracted against him. The co-accused Sahil Garg and Ankur Garg who are his sons have been extended benefit of anticipatory bail. The dispute between the parties is of civil nature which has been given a criminal colour. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. It is, thus, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Notice of motion. 6. Mr. Apoorv Garg, Addl. AG, Haryana has advance notice of the petition. Memo of appearance on behalf of the complainant has also been filed. Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant is ready to argue the matter and it is submitted by him that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. The petitioner is a habitual offender involved in six cases of similar nature. By conniving with the co-accused, he had dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver rice worth Rs.37,80,000/- on credit and then failed to make payment of the amount of that rice and with criminal intent even dispose of the goods to some other person. The case is at its nascent stage. To ascertain the precise role played by the petitioner and for MANJU 2026.07.15 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.37860 of 2026 -4- conducting thorough investigation in the matter, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. The petitioner is guilty of concealment of material facts. He has not given any explanation for non payment of the amount of rice received from the complainant. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 7. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 8. The petitioner in connivance with the co-accused is alleged to have caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.37,80,000/- to the complainant with a criminal intent. The co-accused have been extended benefit of anticipatory bail on the ground that the dispute appears to have arisen out of a commercial transaction. The petitioner is, however, shown to be having involved in six other cases of similar nature. The allegations make out a prima facie case showing his criminal intent. There is no explanation on his part to show as to why the amount of the purchased rice has not been given. It is not the plea taken by the petitioner that he has not received the rice from the complainant. The investigation is underway. For conducting thorough and proper investigation in the matter, his custodial interrogation is must. In case, the same is denied to the investigation agency, that shall leave many glaring loopholes and gaps, adversely affecting the investigation. It is well settled proposition of law that while deciding bail applications, gravity of the allegations is an important criteria for denial/grant of bail. The powers of anticipatory MANJU 2026.07.15 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.37860 of 2026 -5- bail are extraordinary and the same are to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 9. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (MANISHA BATRA) 14.07.2026 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANJU 2026.07.15 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh