CRM-M-25832-2026(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 201 CRM-M-25832-2026(O&M) Date of decision: 17.07.2026 Satish Kumar Aggarwal … Petitioner Versus State of UT Chandigarh … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Shailesh Aggrwal, Advocate, and Mr. Yash Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, APP, UT, Chandigarh. *** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 438 Cr.P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 14 dated 07.06.2025, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC (now Sections 318, 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61 BNS) at Police Station EOW (Economic Offence Wing), District U.T. Chandigarh. 2. On 14.05.2026, following order was passed:- “The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 438 Cr.P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 14 dated 07.06.2025, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC (now Sections 318, 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61 BNS) at Police Station EOW (Economic Offence Wing), District U.T. Chandigarh. 2. Briefly stated, the allegations in the present FIR are that the complainant company namely M/s Harvesting India Private Limited, through its authorized representative, alleged that RAJAN 2026.07.20 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25832-2026(O&M) 2 accused persons namely Ashish Kumar and Mandeep Singh, who were working with the complainant company, fabricated invoices and GRNs and manipulated the financial records of the company, thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant company and misappropriating huge amounts. During scrutiny of the records, it was allegedly found that several invoices reflected vehicle numbers of scooters, motorcycles and milk tankers which did not correspond with the quantity of goods allegedly supplied. Upon further investigation and scrutiny of the financial transactions, it was discovered that an amount of Rs. 11,73,01,041/- had allegedly been transferred from the account of the complainant company to various vendors without any actual supply of products to the end customers. It is further the case of the petitioner that he is the sole proprietor of a proprietorship concern running under the name and style of "ANNPURNA TRADERS", having its office at Jaipur, Rajasthan, and had business dealings with the complainant company in the ordinary course of trade. The petitioner claims that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and that no role whatsoever has been attributed to him in the alleged fabrication or manipulation of records by the officials of the complainant company. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is running a proprietorship concern under the name and style of "ANNPURNA TRADERS" and had entered into genuine business transactions with the complainant company in the ordinary course of trade. It is argued that the petitioner had been regularly purchasing rice from the complainant company and making bona fide payments against the invoices from the year 2022 till January, 2025. It is further contended that even after the alleged discovery of fraud by the complainant company and termination of its employees namely Ashish Kumar and Mandeep Singh, the complainant company continued its business dealings with the petitioner and supplied goods to him till 05.02.2025, which itself falsifies the allegations of fake transactions and non-supply of goods. Learned counsel further RAJAN 2026.07.20 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25832-2026(O&M) 3 submits that the dispute between the parties is purely commercial and monetary in nature arising out of business transactions and has wrongly been given a criminal colour. It is argued that the complainant company has already initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with regard to the dishonour of cheque in question and the present FIR has been lodged only as a pressure tactic for recovery of alleged outstanding dues. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not named in the initial allegations against the employees of the complainant company and no specific role has been attributed to him regarding preparation of forged invoices, manipulation of GRNs or siphoning of funds without supply of goods. It is further contended that the petitioner had actually received the goods against the invoices issued by the complainant company and the business transactions are duly reflected in the record. Counsel submits that the cheque in question was a blank signed security cheque which has allegedly been misused by the complainant company by filling an inflated amount without the consent or authorization of the petitioner. It has also been argued that the FIR has been registered after considerable and unexplained delay, which casts serious doubt upon the genuineness of the allegations. Learned counsel also argues that similarly situated co-accused/customer has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon'ble Court and the case of the present petitioner stands on similar footing. It is thus prayed that the petitioner, who is ready and willing to join investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency, deserves the concession of anticipatory bail. 4. Notice of motion. 5. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, Addl. P.P. U.T. Chandigarh accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and has opposed the present petition. 6. Learned State counsel submits that serious allegations of cheating, forgery and manipulation of invoices and GRNs involving huge financial transactions have been levelled against RAJAN 2026.07.20 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25832-2026(O&M) 4 the accused persons. It is argued that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required to unearth the entire conspiracy and the flow of funds. It is further contended that the petitioner was one of the beneficiaries of the transactions in question and the allegations cannot be brushed aside merely on the plea that the dispute is civil in nature. Learned State counsel further submits that the offences involve economic fraud causing substantial financial loss to the complainant company and, therefore, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case with their able assistance. 8. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court finds that the petitioner was admittedly dealing with the complainant company in the course of commercial transactions and the material placed on record prima facie indicates existence of business dealings between the parties. The petitioner has sought to project himself as a customer of the complainant company and not as an employee or office bearer involved in preparation of invoices or GRNs. It has also been argued that proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have already been initiated between the parties regarding the monetary dispute. 9. Furthermore, the petitioner was not initially named in the FIR and his case appears to be substantially similar to that of co- accused Santosh Chatterjee, who has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. At this stage, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner does not appear to be necessary, particularly when the case primarily rests upon documentary evidence already in possession of the investigating agency. The petitioner has expressed his willingness to join investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency as and when required. 10. Consequently, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to his joining RAJAN 2026.07.20 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25832-2026(O&M) 5 investigation within seven days from today and further subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) BNSS/Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 11. Adjourned to 17.07.2026.” 3. Continuing his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in compliance of the order dated 14.05.2026, passed by the coordinate Bench, petitioner has joined the investigation, and has fully co- operated. Therefore, he prays for confirmation of the said interim anticipatory bail order. 4. Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Ashok Kumar, confirms the said averment made by counsel for the petitioner of joining the investigation by the petitioner, and submits that as of now, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Since, petitioner has already joined the investigation and custodial interrogation is no more required; ad-interim bail order dated 14.05.2026, passed by the coordinate Bench is hereby made absolute. Accordingly, present petition is allowed. However, petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the terms and conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. ( Sanjay Vashisth ) Judge 17.07.2026 Rajan Whether speaking / reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RAJAN 2026.07.20 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document