Jaivendra Singh Negi vs State Of Haryana

CRM CRM-M-61173 CRM CRM 61173 61173-2026 61173 2026 2026 2026
1


110 110 110 110
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
ATCHANDIGARH ATCHANDIGARH ATCHANDIGARH ATCHANDIGARH

CRM CRM-M-61173 CRM CRM 61173 61173-2026 61173 2026 2026 2026

Jaivendra Singh Negi
....Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana
....Respondent

Date of Decision: Date of Decision: November 11 Date of Decision: Date of Decision: November 11 November 11, 2026 November 11 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026
Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: November 11 Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: November 11 November 11, 2026 November 11 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026

CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present Present: Present Present Mr. Siddharth Sanwaria, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

Mr. Mrinal Kaushik, Advocate for the complainant.


SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral)

rd
Present 3 petition has been filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the
BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case
bearing FIR No.0134 dated 04.09.2025, registered for the offence punishable
under Sections 316(2), 318(4) & 61 of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station
Shahzadpur, District Ambala.
The first plea for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner was
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh, on the same cause of
action, after clearly delineating therein the antecedents of the petitioner, vide
order dated 05.10.2026 05.10.2026 05.10.2026 passed in CRM 05.10.2026 CRM CRM-M-56859 CRM 56859 56859-2026 56859 2026 2026, and the last plea for 2026
grant of anticipatory bail was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.11 17:52
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-61173 CRM CRM 61173 61173-2026 61173 2026 2026 2026
2

afresh as certain errors were stated to be crept into the said petition, vide
order dated 16.10.2026 16.10.2026 16.10.2026 passed in CRM 16.10.2026 CRM CRM-M-60608 CRM 60608 60608-2026 60608 2026 2026. 2026
2. For the sake of ease, relevant factual milieu drawn from the
order dated 10.09.2026 passed by the concerned Sessions Court (whereby
anticipatory bail plea of the petitioner was rejected), reads thus:
“ 2. Briefly stated, the FIR was registered on the complaint of Ashok
Kumar and Om Parkash. As per the prosecution version, in May 2025, co-
accused Aman @ Manik Singla and Baldev Rana approached the
complainants and represented that they had a prospective purchaser for
land situated in village Tharwa, who was willing to purchase the same at a
higher rate. The complainants were thereafter introduced to a person
projected as Jai Prakash NRI, who allegedly agreed to purchase the land at
the rate of Rs.3.20 crore per acre and paid Rs.1 lakh as token money. On
the assurance of resale to the said prospective purchaser at a higher rate,
the complainants entered into a transaction with co-accused Harbans
Singh and Naresh Rani. It is alleged that the complainants thereafter paid
Rs.39 lakh in cash and handed over post-dated cheques in connection with
the transaction. The complainants subsequently developed suspicion
regarding the land particulars and the proposed subsequent agreement and
stopped payment of the cheques. ”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal
of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are
concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further
iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question.
It has been contended that the petitioner has not been named by his actual name
in the FIR in question and that the alleged identification of him as “Jai Prakash
NRI” is disputed. Learned counsel has argued that the allegation of forging the
Agreement to Sell is attributed to co-accused, namely, Manik and Baldev.
Learned counsel has urged that even the receipt of alleged amount is not
attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel has further urged that the evidence
in the present case is documentary/ electronic in nature and, thus, custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Learned counsel has also urged
that there is an unexplained and inordinate delay in the registration of the FIR
in question, which casts serious doubt in the prosecution version.
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.11 17:52
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-61173 CRM CRM 61173 61173-2026 61173 2026 2026 2026
3

3.1. Learned counsel has urged that co-accused, namely, Naresh Rani
and Baldev Singh have been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the
concerned Court below; and co-accused – Harbans Singh has been afforded the
concession of regular bail by the concerned Court below. It has also been urged
that co-accused, namely, Manik Singla @ Aman has been granted the
concession of regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 21.07.2026 21.07.2026 21.07.2026 passed in 21.07.2026
CRM CRM-M-29864 CRM CRM 29864 29864-2026 29864 2026 2026. 2026
3.2. Learned counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered from
the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is
ready and willing to join investigation. On the basis of the aforementioned
submissions, grant of the instant petition is prayed for.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed detailed
status report by way of an affidavit dated 28.10.2026, which is already on
record. Role of the petitioner, as mentioned in the said status report, reads
thus:
“ 26. That so far as the role of the accused-petitioner is concerned, the
accused-petitioner, in connivance with other accused persons have
committed cheating with the Complainants as he introduced to the
complainants as Jai Prakash NRI and was part of the very
representation on the basis of which the complainants were
induced to enter into the subsequent transaction. The petitioner is
alleged to be that very person. For the sake of brevity, it is
submitted that the petitioner is not a mere prospective purchaser
but is the person who allegedly projected himself as an NRI
purchaser under the name of Jai Prakash NRI. The said
representation was an integral part of the entire transaction and was
used to induce the complainants to enter into the subsequent land
deal. Thus, in this way, the accused-petitioner has cheated the
Complainants with a huge amount of money. Therefore, custodial
interrogation of the accused-petitioner is very much required to
elicit the truth regarding the transaction/money trail and other
connected aspects. Also, it is submitted that the fact that the
petitioner allegedly paid only Rs.1 lakh, or that the said amount
was subsequently returned, also does not by itself conclude the
matter in his favour. The allegation against him is not confined to
receipt of money, but relates to his alleged participation in the
representation regarding the prospective purchaser and the
proposed resale of the land at a higher consideration. The question
whether the petitioner was genuinely a purchaser or was himself
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.11 17:52
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-61173 CRM CRM 61173 61173-2026 61173 2026 2026 2026
4

part of the alleged arrangement is a matter which requires
investigation.
”

4.1. In respect of antecedents of the petitioner, it has been status
thus in the aforesaid detailed status report:
“ 29. That upon checking and verification of the criminal antecedents of
the accused-petitioner, the accused-petitioner has been found
involved in two (2) other criminal matters as per police record the
details of which is as under:
(i) FIR no.172/2026 under sections 316(2), 318(4), 61(2) BNS
registered at PS Sector 9 Ambala City (Status: Investigation
Undergoing and Accused-Petitioner Is Yet to Be Joined in
The Investigation).
(ii) FIR no.281/2023 under sections 409, 420, 120-B IPC
registered at PS Kharar, SAS Nagar (PB.) (Status: accused-
petitioner was discharged from this case). ”

4.2. Raising submissions in tandem with the aforesaid detailed
status report, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail
by arguing that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner.
It has been submitted that considering seriousness of the allegations,
custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for fair and effective
investigation. Given the severity of the offence, there exists a substantial
likelihood that the petitioner may abscond or tamper with the evidence, if the
petitioner is enlarged on bail. Thus, dismissal of the petition in hand is
prayed for.
4.3. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed
the present petition, contending that serious allegations have been levelled
against the petitioner. It has been submitted that the petitioner was the very
person introduced to the complainant as “Jai Prakash NRI”, whose
representation induced the complainant to enter into the subsequent
transaction. It is further contended that, acting upon such representations, the
complainant was induced to part with a substantial amount of money.
Learned counsel has also expressed apprehension that, in the event of grant
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.11 17:52
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-61173 CRM CRM 61173 61173-2026 61173 2026 2026 2026
5

of anticipatory bail, the petitioner may abscond and evade the process of
law. On these grounds, it has been urged that the petitioner does not deserve
the concession of anticipatory bail and, accordingly, dismissal of the present
petition is entreated for.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have
gone through the available record of the case.
6. As per the prosecution case, the allegations against the
petitioner are serious in nature. Perusal of the prosecution case, material
available on record, the detailed status report filed by the State, as also the
order whereby anticipatory bail of the petitioner was declined by the
concerned Sessions Court, prima facie reveals that the plea of the petitioner
that he was only a prospective purchaser and that he had himself been
deceived cannot, at this stage, be accepted merely on the basis of his own
assertion. It is the case of the prosecution that the person introduced to the
complainant as Jai Prakash NRI, was part of the very representation made to
the complainant, on the basis of which the complainant was allegedly
induced to enter into the subsequent transaction, and that the petitioner was
the said person. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was not
someone who subsequently came into the picture, but was allegedly
associated with the initial representation concerning the prospective
purchaser and the proposed resale of the land at a higher consideration. The
prosecution further alleges that the petitioner’s role was not confined merely
to the payment of Rs.1 lakh, but extended to his alleged participation in the
aforesaid representation, which formed the basis of the transaction. Keeping
in the view factual milieu of the case in hand; especially seriousness &
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.11 17:52
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-61173 CRM CRM 61173 61173-2026 61173 2026 2026 2026
6

gravity of the allegations; this Court is of the, prima facie , opinion that the
petitioner does not deserve the concession of extraordinary relief of
anticipatory bail.
6.1. The co-accused of the petitioner have been stated to be granted
the concession of regular bail by this Court and the concerned Sessions
Court; however, the petitioner seeks the extraordinary relief of anticipatory
bail. The considerations and parameters governing grant of regular bail are
distinct from those applicable to the grant of anticipatory bail. Consequently,
the petitioner cannot claim parity with his co-accused merely on the ground
that the said co-accused have been granted regular bail.
6.2. Perusal of the petition in hand shows that the petitioner has
himself admitted therein that he is involved in 02 more FIR(s). The aforesaid
criminal antecedent(s) reveal that petitioner is a habitual offender with a
tendency to indulge in criminal activities. Such antecedent(s) cannot be
brushed aside as a mere coincidence and are a relevant consideration while
adjudicating the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. The criminal
antecedent(s) of petitioner also raise a reasonable apprehension that, if
enlarged on bail, he may indulge in similar criminal activities, misuse the
concession of bail, or interfere with the fair course of justice. The possibility
of his absconding or influencing prosecution witnesses also cannot be ruled
out.
6.3. The other pleas raised by the petitioner, including those of false
implication etc., are matters to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence
during the course of trial. Such disputed questions of fact(s) cannot be
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.11 17:52
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-61173 CRM CRM 61173 61173-2026 61173 2026 2026 2026
7

conclusively determined at the stage of consideration of the petitioner’s
prayer for anticipatory bail.
6.4. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage,
from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely
implicated into the present FIR.
7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for
grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding
individual rights and protecting societal interests. The Court ought to reckon
with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the
accused; the need for free and fair investigation as also the deeper and wider
impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every
person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear
of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that
prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which
has come on record and preliminary investigation appear to establish a
reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment
in effective investigation. In State State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 :1997 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 :1997
State State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 :1997 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 :1997
SCC (Cri) 1039] SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) SCC (Cri) 1039] SCC (Cri) 1039]
6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is
“
qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-
ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case
like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous
advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which
would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the
suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest
bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such
a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial
interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-
degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be
advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that
responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.11 17:52
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-61173 CRM CRM 61173 61173-2026 61173 2026 2026 2026
8

and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not
conduct themselves as offenders.
”

8. In view of the seriousness & gravity of the allegations, this
Court finds no compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary
relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Moreover, custodial interrogation
of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the
truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed dismissed dismissed. dismissed
9. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression
of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.









(SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE
November 11 November 11, 2026 November 11 November 11 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026
mahavir

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.11 17:52
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment