Paramasivam Mahalingam vs State Of Haryana

CRM-M-46082-2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
101+211
CRM-M-46082-2026 (O&M)
Decided on: 02.11.2026
PARAMASIVAM MAHALINGAM
…...Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
…...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Rajeev Anand, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Simran Atwal, Advocate and
Mr. Vandit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg, Addl. AG, Haryana.
Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate,
Mr. Abhishek Shukla, Advocate and
Mr. Tarun Hooda, Advocate for the complainant(s).

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
CRM-43954-2026
1. Present application has been moved by the applicant/com­
plainant for placing on record the copy of order dated 06.10.2026 passed
by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to appeal (CRL) No.18902
of 2026 as Annexure A/1.
2. Considering the averments mentioned in the application,
prayer made in the application is allowed and reply on behalf of the
applicant/complainant, along with the documents annexed thereto, are
KAVITA NAIN
2026.11.02 20:38
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-M-46082-2026 (O&M) 2
ordered to be taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at the
appropriate place on the file.
3. CM stands disposed of.
CRM-M-46082-2026
1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS,
2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First
Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-
Name of
Petitioner
(s)
FIR No. Date Section(s) Police
Station
District
Paramasiva
0175 17.07.2021 406, 420, 467, 468,
DLF
Phase-3
Gurugram
m
Mahalingam
471, 506, 120B and
34 IPC
(corresponding
Sections 316(2),
318(4), 338,
336(3),
340(2),351(2),
351(3) and 3(5) of
BNS)
, aged 73
years
2. On 05.10.2026, following order was passed:-
“2. Admitted position, as understood from the submissions
addressed by learned counsel for the parties and the terms
recorded in loan agreement dated 18.03.2015 (Annexure P-6) is
that, in the year 2009, petitioner's Company took loan of the
amount of Rs. 13,00,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Crores) from
one Financer namely, Sindhu Trade Links Ltd. and this amount
was to be repaid alongwith accrued interest.
Since the initial loan amount of Rs. 13,00,00,000/- could
not be repaid within time period to Sindhu Trade Links Ltd,
another loan amount of Rs. 35,00,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five
Crores) was obtained in the year 2015 with the purpose to seek
financial assistance from the lender (complainantcompany) for
re-payment of the existing loans/advances taken by the
petitioner's company from the original lender and also for
certain other purposes.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that
after receiving the loan amount of Rs. 35,00,00,000/- (Rupees
Thirty Five Crores), without any delay on 24.03.2015 and
KAVITA NAIN
2026.11.02 20:38
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-M-46082-2026 (O&M) 3
25.03.2015 (Annexure P-7), total amount of Rs. 25,00,00,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Crores) was repaid to the earlier
Financer-Sindhu Trade Links Ltd.
4. Petitioner is the Managing Trustee of the accused Trust,
and is alleged to be the prime accused, who indulged in
committing forgery during the execution of documents and
submitted them to the complainant company to obtain the loan
for running his Trust.
Qua other co-accused namely Sharmila Anand and PM
Nargunam @ Pudhar Manichak Nargunam, the plea of
anticipatory bail was accepted by the Coordinate Bench in the
petitions namely, CRM-M-41502-2026 and CRM-M-42409-
2026. These co-accused were initially granted anticipatory
bail vide order dated 10.08.2026 and upon joining
investigation, same was confirmed vide order dated
28.09.2026.
It is relevant to note that in two other petitions i.e.
CRM-M-52189-2026 and CRM-M-52238-2026 filed by one
more co-accused Santosh Mahalingam, for grant of
anticipatory bail and challenging the non-bailable warrants,
vide order dated 16.09.2026, this Court directed the said
accused to surrender before the Court within three weeks i.e.
uptill 18.10.2026, subject to the depositing an amount of Rs.
50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs) with the Registrar General of
this Court. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner
informs that to acknowledge the bonafide of the petitioner that
infact he wants to wind up the present controversy by way of
settlement, which primarily is financial in nature, the cost
amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lacs) ordered by this
Court, has already been deposited.
Further, informs that said co-accused (Santosh
Mahalingam) would surrender back to the Court for joining
further proceedings within the stipulated period, as ordered by
this Court.
Further submits that apart repaying the loan amount of
Rs. 25,00,00,000/- in 2015 itself to the earlier Financer,
subsequently also, many a times amount of Rs. 34 crores in
installments has already been paid back to the complainant
company against the basic loan amount of Rs. 35 crores.
However, major part of payment is adjusted towards the
accruing interest on the borrowed amount. This way,
petitioner's company has made the total repayment of the
amount of Rs. 59,00,00,000/- (Rs. 25 crores and Rs. 34 crores)
to both the Financers.
Apart this, learned senior counsel also expresses his
mind to offer another amount of Rs. 70,00,00,000/-, which he
is ready to pay to settle the dispute with the complainant for all
times to come. However, he prays for granting permission to
deposit the same by affording him some reasonable time, may
be in some installments.
Thus, senior counsel submits that petitioner may not be
subjected to the custodial interrogation, because it would not
serve any meaningful purpose, once mind of settling the dispute
is already expressed by all the accused and same is noticed by
KAVITA NAIN
2026.11.02 20:38
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-M-46082-2026 (O&M) 4
this Court, in the collateral proceedings of the other bail
petitions.
6. Mr. Rajiv Anand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioner, further points out that a Look Out Circular
(LOC) has already been issued against the petitioner.
Consequently, it would not be possible for the petitioner to
return to India and join the investigation. It is, therefore,
submitted that, in the event this Court is inclined to grant pre-
arrest bail to the petitioner, appropriate protection may also be
granted in respect of the LOC already issued against him, so as
to facilitate his return to India for the purpose of joining the
investigation.
7. While opposing the prayer of the petitioner, learned
counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner has
grossly abused the process of law. The loan amount was
obtained in the year 2015 and the outstanding balance was
never fully repaid by the petitioner. Counsel further submits
that for obtaining the loan amount in the year 2015, the
documents which were supplied to the complainant lender
company, were found to be false and forged.
Complainant company has no concern with the
repayment of Rs. 25,00,00,000/- for the loan amount
obtained from some other Financer namely Sindhu Trade Links
Ltd. Mr. K.P. Singh, Advocate also disputes the amount stated
by the petitioner, having paid back to the complainant.
Mr. Keshav Partap Singh, learned counsel for the
complainant, also submits that, as per the material collected
during the course of investigation, the documents represented
and relied upon before the complainant-company have prima
facie been found to be false. It is further submitted that the loan
amount has also not been repaid, thereby causing financial loss
to the complainant, which is engaged in the business of
financing. It is, therefore, contended that petitioner is not
entitled to the equitable relief of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly,
learned counsel prays for dismissal of the present petition.
8. This Court has heard the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the parties and has also perused the record
available before it.
9. One fact which remains undisputed is that both the
sides, i.e. the accused-company and the complainant-finance
company, are engaged in the business of financing and related
financial transactions, with the object of earning profits in the
course of their respective businesses.
10. It is also not disputed by the petitioner and his co-
accused that an amount of Rs.35 crores was received by them
from the complainant-company. It is equally not in dispute that
the said amount has not been repaid within the stipulated
period and, consequently, petitioner and his co-accused would
be liable to pay the applicable interest, in accordance with the
terms and conditions agreed upon at the time of disbursement
of the amount and/or execution of the relevant
agreement/contract between the parties.
11. It is also a matter of record that, for the last about ten
years, proceedings arising out of the transactions in question
KAVITA NAIN
2026.11.02 20:38
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-M-46082-2026 (O&M) 5
have remained pending at different stages before the Courts
below, this Court, as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court.
12. The financial transactions between the parties appear to
have been entered in the ordinary course of their respective
businesses, with the object of earning profits. It is also the
specific assertion of the petitioner that, since the year 2009, an
amount of approximately Rs.59 crores has gone out of the
account of the petitioner-company, out of which an amount of
approximately Rs.34 crores is stated to have been deposited
towards repayment of the loan amount of Rs.35 crores received
from the complainant in March, 2015. In view of the
aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the prima facie view
that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not serve any
meaningful purpose for the prosecution agency or, even to the
complainant-company except of satisfaction of the whims or
wish of the complainant.
13. Since a Look Out Circular (LOC) has been issued
against the petitioner, if the petitioner returns back to India to
join investigation, within two weeks from today i.e. uptill 12.00
midnight of 19.10.2026 no effect shall be given to the Look Out
Circular (LOC) by the concerned authorities, subject to the
condition that petitioner arrives in India and joins investigation
in accordance with direction issued by this Court.
14. Adjourned to 13.10.2026.
15. In the meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the
investigation within two weeks. In the event of his arrest,
petitioner shall be released on ad-interim bail, subject to his
furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the
Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall also be abide by all the
conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023
(earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.).
16. Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over
his passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned,
if he possesses one. Otherwise, he would submit an affidavit,
disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport.
It is also directed that before leaving country any time
during trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of the
Court.”
3. Continuing his submissions, learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner contends that in compliance of the order dated 05.10.2026,
passed by this Court, petitioner has already joined the investigation two
times i.e. on 17.10.2026 and 26.10.2026, and has fully co-operated.
Therefore, he prays for confirmation of the said interim anticipatory bail
order.
KAVITA NAIN
2026.11.02 20:38
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-M-46082-2026 (O&M) 6
4. Learned State Counsel, on instructions from the Sub-
Inspector concerned, confirms the averment made by learned counsel for
the petitioner that the petitioner joined the investigation on 17.10.2026
and 26.10.2026. Moreover, it is submitted that the petitioner has not fully
cooperated at certain other part of the investigation by examining the
documents which are yet to be submitted by the petitioner, need to be
examined.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. This Court has already noticed that the FIR in the present
case was registered in 2021 that the loan amount of Rs.35 crores taken by
the Trust/company of the petitioner on 18.03.2015. After a period of more
than 06 years, FIR was registered on 17.07.2021. Primarily this dispute
appears to be financial in nature on account of failure of petitioner/his
trust in paying back of the loan amount. Though it was averred before
this Court and reiterated even today also that after obtaining the loan
amount from the complainant, Rs.34 crores in instalments already stands
paid to the company in different instalments. Apart this, Mr. Rajiv Anand,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that on
assailing of the interim bail order dated 05.10.2026 passed in the present
petition by the complainant PM Fincap limited in SLP 20209 of 2026
(Diary No.63509/2026) Apex Court on 14.10.2026 directed the petitioner
on the proposal given by the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.10
crores to show his bone fide and as per Mr. Rajiv Anand, learned Senior
Counsel, the said amount is already deposited with the Apex Court
KAVITA NAIN
2026.11.02 20:38
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-M-46082-2026 (O&M) 7
registry vide demand draft No.509427 dated 15.10.2026 issued by ICICI
Bank (photocopy of the demand draft and the receipt dated 15.10.2026 is
placed on record). In view of the aforementioned and already been
recorded by this Court in its interim order dated 05.10.2026, this Court
does not find force in raising objection by the complainant to dismiss the
prayer or to adjourn the proceedings. In totality of circumstances, apart
this it is also noticed that already the offer given by the petitioner to pay
back Rs.70 crores over and above he already paid Rs.34 crores (though
seriously opposed by the complainant counsel) and said offer is already
even noticed by the Apex Court as well. Thereupon the direction was
issued by the Apex Court to deposit Rs.10 crores which petitioner has
already deposited.
7. Since, petitioner has already joined the investigation and
custodial interrogation is no more required; ad-interim bail order dated
05.10.2026, passed by this Court 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.
8. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.
However, present order would be subject to the submission
of passport of the petitioner to the Investigating Agency or to Court
concerned, if he possesses, within a period of one week from today.
KAVITA NAIN
2026.11.02 20:38
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-M-46082-2026 (O&M) 8
Otherwise, he would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does
not possess any passport.
It is clarified that in case, aforesaid condition is not complied
with, this order would be considered as non est automatically.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
02.11.2026
Kavita
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
KAVITA NAIN
2026.11.02 20:38
I agree to specified portions
of this document