Rajender Kumar vs State Of Haryana

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court

CRM CRM-M-60092 CRM CRM 60092 60092-2026 60092 2026 2026 2026
1


108 108 108 108
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-M-60092 CRM 60092-2026 2026
CRM CRM 60092 60092 2026 2026

Rajender Kumar Sharma
....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. Sunil Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

Mr. Prashant Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the complainant.


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

Present 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.193 dated 30.09.2026, registered for the offence punishable under
Sections 409, 420 of the IPC, 1860, at Police Station Rewari Sadar, District
Rewari.
2. For the sake of ease, relevant factual milieu drawn from the
order dated 08.10.2026 passed by the concerned Sessions Court (whereby
anticipatory bail plea of the petitioner was rejected), reads thus:
“ 4. Facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that, it is alleged that Sh.
Rajender Kumar Sharma, Retired Principal, Government Senior
Secondary School, Bhudpur, District Rewari, Haryana, committed
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.11 17:52
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-60092 CRM CRM 60092 60092-2026 60092 2026 2026 2026
2

financial irregularities, alleged embezzlement and forgery in connection
with the utilisation of various school grants amounting to approximately
C95,00,000/-. The complainant alleged that funds sanctioned for minor
works, construction and repair of school buildings, a basketball ground, a
boundary wall, a computer laboratory, repair of classrooms, toilets and
other facilities were misappropriated or utilised for unauthorised purposes.
It is further alleged that the accused withdrew C14,12,000/- under the
Minor Works Grant on 08.09.2017, despite having been transferred from
GSSS Bhudpur on 06.09.2017 and relieved on 11.09.2017 at 11:20 AM.
The complaint also alleges that he operated the school's bank account,
issued cheques and incurred expenditure in the capacity of Principal even
after being relieved. Further discrepancies were alleged in respect of
payments, bills, vouchers, receipts, muster rolls, cheque sequences and the
actual execution of sanctioned works. It was also alleged that C 4,00,000/-
sanctioned for the basketball ground was transferred to his personal bank
account and that certain construction works, including the computer
laboratory, were not executed as sanctioned. The complainant further
alleged that several school grants were not properly accounted for and that
the charge relating to certain grants was handed over belatedly. Despite
representations to the higher authorities, the alleged irregularities
remained unresolved. Accordingly, a complaint dated 12.09.2022 was
submitted to the Director General, State Vigilance Bureau, Haryana,
seeking a thorough inquiry and legal action. Pursuant to the directions of
the competent education authorities and the Deputy Commissioner,
Rewari, the Principal, GSSS Bhudpur, submitted letter No. 413 dated
28.09.2026 to the Superintendent of Police, Rewari, requesting registration
of an FIR and further action in accordance with law. On the basis of
above-said complaint, instant FIR has been lodged and investigation has
been carried out. ”

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 is a retired Principal and a State
Awardee, having an unblemished service record. Learned counsel has
submitted that there is an unexplained and inordinate delay of approximately 09
years in lodging the FIR, inasmuch as the alleged irregularities pertain to the
period 2016–2017, whereas the FIR came to be registered only on 30.09.2026,
thereby casting serious doubt on the prosecution version. It has further been
argued that the alleged construction and repair works were duly physically
verified, measured and approved by the competent technical authorities and
that the matter had earlier been inquired into by the competent authority and
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.11 17:52
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-60092 CRM CRM 60092 60092-2026 60092 2026 2026 2026
3

was subsequently closed. Learned counsel has contended that reopening the
same matter, after an inordinate lapse of time without any fresh material, is
arbitrary and legally unsustainable. It has also been argued that the allegations
are primarily founded upon a report prepared by JE Sandeep Kumar, which is
stated to be unfair and contrary to the Government instructions dated
30.06.2021, mandating strict adherence to prescribed procedures and principles
of natural justice in inquiries against group-level officers. Learned counsel has
further submitted that the petitioner had submitted detailed representations
clarifying that the grant sanctioned for the basketball ground was ` 4 lakh and
`
not 40 lakh. It has also been pointed out that although the petitioner’s transfer
order was issued on 06.09.2017, but he was relieved only on 11.09.2017 and,
therefore, on 08.09.2017, when an amount of ` 14,12,000/- was withdrawn, he
was still holding the charge of Principal and was duly authorised to exercise the
requisite powers. Thus, the allegation of mala fide intention is stated to be
wholly presumptive. Learned counsel has argued that the entire case is based
on documentary evidence and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is not required.
3.1. 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 reply by way
of an affidavit dated 29.10.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on
record. Role of the petitioner, as mentioned in the said short reply, reads
thus:
“ 15. That the present petitioner accused Rajender Kumar @ Rajender
Kumar Sharma had misappropriated the grants which were released for the
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.11 17:52
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-60092 CRM CRM 60092 60092-2026 60092 2026 2026 2026
4

welfare of the school and had embezzled the government money for his
wrongful gains and had also changed the purpose of grants. That further
the present petitioner accused Rajender Kumar @ Rajender Kumar
Sharma in illegal manner had kept the record with him for more than 2
years. That the fact of manipulation is yet to be examined in the present
case during the investigation. That the present petitioner accused Rajender
Kumar @ Rajender Kumar Sharma also failed to comply with the required
and necessary directions to be complied for such grants and their
implementations. ”

Raising submissions in tandem with the aforesaid reply, 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 seriousness of the allegations, 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.
4.1. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed
the grant of petition in hand by arguing that there are serious allegations
against the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner, while serving as
Principal, misappropriated school grants worth approximately
Rs.95,00,000/- through financial irregularities. Learned counsel has iterated
that given the seriousness and gravity of the offence, in case the petitioner is
granted concession of anticipatory bail, there is all likelihood that he may
abscond from the process of justice as also interfere in the prosecution
evidence. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition in
hand is entreated for.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have
gone through the available record of the case.
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.11 17:52
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-60092 CRM CRM 60092 60092-2026 60092 2026 2026 2026
5

6. As per the prosecution case, the allegations against the
petitioner are serious in nature. Perusal of the prosecution case, the material
available on record, the reply filed by the State, as also the order whereby
the anticipatory bail of the petitioner was declined by the concerned Sessions
Court, prima facie reveals that the petitioner, while serving as Principal,
allegedly misappropriated school grants amounting to approximately
`
95,00,000/- by resorting to various financial irregularities, including
forgery, unauthorized withdrawals, transfer of funds into his personal
account and discrepancies in bills and official records. It is further the case
of the prosecution that several sanctioned construction and repair works
were allegedly either not executed or not duly accounted for by the
petitioner. Keeping in the view factual milieu of the case in hand; especially
seriousness 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 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
conclusively determined at the stage of consideration of the petitioner’s
prayer for anticipatory bail.
6.2. 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
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.11 17:52
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-60092 CRM CRM 60092 60092-2026 60092 2026 2026 2026
6

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 State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 :1997 State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 :1997 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
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
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.11 17:52
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M-60092 CRM CRM 60092 60092-2026 60092 2026 2026 2026
7

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