CRM-M-48942- IN THE H (101) SANDEEP KUM STATE OF HAR CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Mr. Mr. R MANISHA BATR CRM-699-2026 1. The annexed with the a 1 (Colly.) CRM-M-48942- 1. The Section 482 of Bh for grant of anticip registered under S Metro, Gurugram. -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH KUMAR Versus
HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Mr. Shobit Phutela, Advocate for the Mr. Varun Gupta, DAG, Haryana Mr. Ram Prakash, Advocate for the c ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL) The application for placing on record th the application are ordered to be pla -2025 The instant petition has been prefe of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh anticipatory bail in case arising out o nder Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and gram. JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-48942-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 19.02.2026 ... Petitioner
...Respondent
ANISHA BATRA
or the petitioner r the complainant record is allowed and the documents be placed on record as Annexure A- preferred by the petitioner under a Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) out of FIR No.12 dated 18.06.2025 1 and 120B of IPC at Police Station M) 2026
ents - nder ) 2025 ation CRM-M-48942- 2. The a complaint submitt Limited (for short Kumar Panchal a Limited Company AFIPL to facilitat collection/recovery governed by two 09.06.2023 and 2 contractually auth as per the terms petitioner who is collecting cash pa illegally withheld account of AFIPL customers of AFI cash payments to payments shall be By alleging that th forged no objecti prepared forged d huge loss of mon Private Limited ha amount of loan so -2025 (O&M) 2 The aforementioned FIR was registe ubmitted by the complainant M/s. Art r short “AFIPL”) through its authoriz al alleging therein that Grihastha mpany (for short “Grihastha”) was an acilitate loan product distribution, cus covery. The arrangement between two Master Service Agreements (fo and 26.12.2023 respectively. Griha y authorized to collect any cash payme terms of the agreement. However, ho is Director of the Grihastha and ash payments from the customers of thheld them and did not transfer the s AFIPL. It was also found that f AFIPL by fraudulently and dishon nts to the officers of Grihastha unde all be transferred to AFIPL against t that the petitioner and the other co-acc objection certificates, fabricated stat rged documents for unlawful retention f money to AFIPL and that, a comp had availed loan to the tune of R oan so taken was unlawfully transferr registered on the basis of a written Arthmate Financing India Private thorized representative Mr. Pardeep astha Saving and Services Private as an outsourced service partner for n, customer due diligence and loan etween AFIPL and Grihastha was (for short “MSA”) executed on Grihastha was neither legally nor payments from customers of AFIPL ever, by flouting those terms, the and the other co-accused started ers of AFIPL without any authority, r the same into the designated bank that Grihastha had been deceiving dishonestly inducing them to make under the pretence that these cash ainst the customers loan repayment. accused had also issued false and d statements of accounts and had tention of payments thereby causing company named as M/s. Blueella e of Rs.50 lakh from AFIPL but the nsferred to the account of Grihastha ritten ivate deep ivate r for loan was d on nor FIPL , the arted rity, bank iving ake cash ent. and had sing ella t the astha CRM-M-48942- immediately with misappropriation a had stopped makin proceedings have Director of Griha apprehending his a Sessions Judge, G 3. It is also a complaint Economic Offence The same was inq him. In fact his payments, receipt complainant to ad continue to collec complainant had c forcing the busine complainant comp market situation fo loan repayment co and frivolous. It w of an amount of petitioner. The sa -2025 (O&M) 3 without any legitimate justifica ation and diversion of loan funds. The making repayment of loan. After reg have been initiated and are underw Grihastha moved an application for g his arrest. The same had been dism ge, Gurugram vide order dated 27.08. It is argued by learned counsel for plaint had been lodged by the c ffences Wing Department, Gurugram as inquired into. The petitioner had f act his Company was never provide eceipts apparently issued to the custo to adequately respond to the allegat collect loan repayments w.e.f. March t had created its own entity in the na business of the Company of the petiti t company itself had frustrated the a tion for the company of the petitioner ent collection. The allegations levelle s. It was some ex-employee of his co nt of Rs.2 lakh in his personal accou The said employee has now joined the stification thereby amounting to s. The said Blueella Private Limited fter registration of FIR, investigation underway. The petitioner who is for grant of pre-arrest bail while n dismissed by the Court of Learned 27.08.2025. el for the petitioner that previously the complainant Company before rugram Police against the petitioner. r had filed reply to the inquiry put to provided with proofs of fabricated e customers of the Company of the allegations. His company could not March, 2024, as the company of the the name of “Zenocollect” thereby petitioner to be closed down. The the agreements by creating such a tioner that it could not undertake any levelled against him are totally false his company who received payment l account without knowledge of the ed the company of the complainant. to ited ation o is hile rned usly efore oner. ut to cated f the d not f the y The ch a any false ment f the nant. CRM-M-48942- The dispute betwe to attract the ingr booked. He is re from him. His cu that the petition de 4. Per co complainant has allegations agains documents, had m payable to the com amount of money interrogation of t investigation in th grant of pre-arrest not deserve to be a 5. This C at considerable len 6. The into MSA with the by violating the t misrepresentation the complainant -2025 (O&M) 4 between the parties is of civil nature. ingredients for commission of off e is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not req deserves to be allowed. Per contra, learned State counsel assi t has vehemently argued that the against the petitioner who by pre had misappropriated and diverted l the company of the complainant by i money has been caused to the comp n of the petitioner is must for con n in the matter. No exceptional or ex arrest bail is made out. It is, therefore to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submi ble length. The petitioner is Director of Grihast ith the AFIPL i.e the complainant com the terms and conditions of the ag tation of facts, the petitioner’s compan inant by receiving cash payments ature. There is no material on record of offences for which he has been tion. No recovery is to be effected ot required. It is, therefore, argued el assisted by learned counsel for the there are serious and specific by preparing false and fabricated rted loan funds which were to be t by its borrowers. A loss of huge complainant Company. Custodial r conducting thorough and proper l or extra-ordinary circumstance for erefore, argued that the petition does ubmissions made by both the parties rihastha Company who had entered nt company. As per the allegations, the agreement, by concealment and ompany had cheated the company of ments from the loanees and not cord been ected gued r the cific cated o be huge odial roper e for does rties tered ions, and ny of not CRM-M-48942- transferring the s company by delib by accepting cas company could no nature. It is well bail should be circumstances an conducting effecti custodial interrog ordinary circumsta Taking into consi make any comme opinion that the p dismissed. 8. Since any, is rendered in 19.02.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 5 the same to the designated bank a deliberately misrepresenting his com g cash payments from its custome uld not do so. The allegations again s well settled proposition of law that be exercised by the Court in e es and not in a routine manner. The c effective investigation so as to avoid a terrogation of the petitioner is mus cumstance for grant of bail is made o consideration the above discussed omment on the merit of the case, th t the petition does deserve to be allow Since the main petition has been dism ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes 
 

bank account of the complainant’s company before its customers and ustomers while noting that he/his against the petitioner are serious in that powers for grant of pre-arrest in exceptional or extra-ordinary The case is at its nascent stage. For avoid any loopholes in the same, the s must. No exceptional or extra- ade out in favour of the petitioner. ssed facts but without meaning to ase, this Court is of the considered e allowed. Accordingly the same is en dismissed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
s and e/his us in rrest inary For , the - oner. g to ered e is n, if