Sunil Arora vs State Of Haryana

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court

CRM-M-59335 of 2026 (O&M) -1-



IN THE HIGH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

225

CRM-M-59335-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 30.10.2026

Sunil Arora

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON

Present:- Mr. Deepender Singh, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Abhishek Sethi, Advocate
Mr. Ramneek Vasudeva, Advocate
and Mr. Nipun Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Ms. Aditi Girdhar, AAG., Haryana.

*

NEERJA K. KALSON, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section
438 Cr.P.C.), seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 425 dated 26.08.2026
(Annexure P-1), registered at Police Station Chandni Bagh, District Panipat,
under Sections 318(4) and 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(corresponding to Sections 420 and 406 IPC, respectively).
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.02 15:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-59335 of 2026 (O&M) -2-
2. Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that he, in
connivance with the co-accused Shivam Arora, induced the complainant and
other suppliers to supply fabric on credit by representing that they were
running the business of M/s Hari Om Furnishings and M/s Sai Ma Overseas
and would export the goods to foreign buyers. On the basis of such
representations, the complainant supplied fabric worth Rs. 17,38,174/-, for
which payment was allegedly not made. Similar allegations have also been
levelled by other suppliers involving substantial amounts. It is further
alleged that the petitioner and his co-accused, after procuring the goods,
failed to honour their commitments and thereby caused wrongful loss to the
complainant and other suppliers.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the
dispute is essentially civil in nature, arising out of commercial transactions
and has been given a criminal colour owing to non-payment of outstanding
dues. It is submitted that the petitioner is neither the proprietor nor a partner
of either firm, as is evident from the GST registration particulars of the said
firms (Annexures P-4 and P-5), and that the business was being managed by
co-accused Shivam Arora. The WhatsApp communications relied upon by
the prosecution, according to learned counsel, were merely assurances
extended on behalf of a friend and do not establish any dishonest intention
on the petitioner’s part. It is further submitted that although the petitioner
was in Nepal when his earlier application for anticipatory bail was
considered, he has since returned to India and is personally present before
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.02 15:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-59335 of 2026 (O&M) -3-
this Court. He is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate
with the Investigating Agency as and when required. On these premises,
prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail.
Per contra
4. , learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel
for the complainant, opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.
The status report dated 29.10.2026, filed by way of affidavit of Harshit Goel,
IPS, Additional Superintendent of Police, Panipat, is taken on record. It is
submitted that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR and has
played a pivotal role in the commission of the alleged offences. Referring to
the statements of the employees of the firm, the suppliers and the petitioner’s
wife collected during investigation and the electronic communications
including the WhatsApp conversations exchanged between the petitioner
and the complainant, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was
actively managing the business alongside co-accused Shivam Arora and
dealing directly with the suppliers. It is pointed out that in the said
conversations, the petitioner had undertaken to arrange Rs. 4 lakhs towards
the liability of M/s Hari Om Furnishings and Rs. 3 lakhs towards M/s Sai
Ma Overseas, with an assurance to clear the remaining amount subsequently.
It is further submitted that approximately 1,000 rolls of fabric were removed
from the godown on 19.07.2026 at the petitioner’s instance and shifted to
Adarsh Home Furnishing, Panipat, as disclosed in the statement of one
Kashish, and thereafter left the country. His custodial interrogation is sought
to ascertain the subsequent movement and disposal of the goods and to
examine the financial transactions connected therewith. The State reply also
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.02 15:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-59335 of 2026 (O&M) -4-
discloses his involvement in FIR No. 223 dated 15.04.2025 under Sections
125(a), 125(b) and 281 BNS, in which he is stated to be on bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the
material placed on record.
6. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner,
namely that the dispute arises out of commercial transactions, requires
consideration in the light of the distinction between a mere breach of
contractual obligation and dishonest inducement. Section 318 BNS
contemplates deception accompanied by fraudulent or dishonest inducement,
and where delivery of property is involved, the requisite dishonest intention
must exist at the inception of the transaction. A subsequent failure to honour
a promise, without anything further, would not satisfy this requirement.
Criminal breach of trust under Section 316 BNS, on the other hand, proceeds
upon entrustment of property or dominion over it, followed by dishonest
misappropriation or conversion. The distinction between these offences has
been reiterated by the Supreme Court in G. Saminathan and another v. The
State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police and another, 2026 INSC
772, wherein the Court emphasised the necessity of examining the essential
ingredients of the offences rather than permitting a contractual dispute to be
converted into criminal proceedings merely on account of non-performance.
7. The allegations in the present case, however, extend beyond
the mere non-payment of outstanding invoices. The prosecution attributes to
the petitioner a direct role in approaching suppliers, procuring fabric on
credit, negotiating rates and extending assurances regarding payment.
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.02 15:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-59335 of 2026 (O&M) -5-
Significantly, the statement of Kashish, an employee of the firms, and the
WhatsApp communications produced by the suppliers are relied upon to
demonstrate his active participation in the transactions. The GST registration
particulars, though relevant to the formal constitution of the firms, do not, by
themselves, exclude the petitioner's involvement in their actual business
affairs. Whether the representations attributed to him were accompanied by
dishonest intention at the inception of the transactions, or whether the
material discloses the distinct ingredients of criminal breach of trust, would
require examination on the basis of the evidence collected during
investigation. The decision in G. Saminathan (supra) does not foreclose
investigation into specific acts of inducement merely because the
transactions arose in the course of business. At this stage, the material relied
upon by the prosecution cannot be disregarded by treating the dispute as
exclusively civil in nature.
8. It is also pertinent to notice that the petitioner’s earlier
application for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Panipat, vide order dated 24.09.2026 (Annexure P-2), upon
consideration of the material then available, including the WhatsApp
communications and the circumstance that he was outside India. The
petitioner has since returned and is stated to be personally present before this
Court. This subsequent development has received due consideration. The
said submission is taken on record. Nevertheless, his return and expressed
willingness to cooperate must be assessed alongside the nature of the
accusations, his conduct during investigation and the material collected by
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.02 15:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-59335 of 2026 (O&M) -6-
the Investigating Agency.
9. The consideration of a prayer for anticipatory bail cannot be
reduced to the solitary question whether custodial interrogation is required.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K. and
another, (2022) 17 SCC 391 , has held that the requirement of custodial
interrogation is a relevant consideration, but not the sole criterion for
deciding a prayer for anticipatory bail. The nature of the accusations, the
prima facie material and the other circumstances of the case must also be
considered. In the present case, the Investigating Agency has identified
specific aspects requiring further investigation, particularly the movement
and disposal of approximately 1,000 rolls of fabric stated to have been
shifted at the petitioner's instance to Adarsh Home Furnishing, Panipat, and
the financial transactions connected with the procurement and disposal of
the goods. The request for custodial interrogation is thus founded upon
identified investigative requirements and cannot be regarded as a routine
assertion.
10. Having regard to the role attributed to the petitioner, the
material collected during investigation and the circumstances noticed above,
this Court does not find sufficient justification to extend the concession of
anticipatory bail. The petitioner's return to India and willingness to
cooperate, though duly considered, do not outweigh the considerations
bearing upon the exercise of discretion at this stage.
11. Consequently, the present petition stands dismissed.
12. Needless to observe, nothing stated hereinabove shall be
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.02 15:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-59335 of 2026 (O&M) -7-
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and the
observations made are confined solely to the adjudication of the present
petition for anticipatory bail.


30.10.2026 (NEERJA K. KALSON)
s.khan JUDGE


Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.02 15:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document