Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Rajesh Kumar Sanghal vs State Of Haryana on 25 February, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
1
ITEM NO.27 COURT NO.15 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3138/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-01-2026
in CRMM No. 70355/2025 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
at Chandigarh]
RAJESH KUMAR SANGHAL & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s)
IA No. 55625/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT and IA No. 58586/2026 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
Date : 25-02-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sudhir Naagar, AOR
Mr. Mohan Khatana, Adv.
Mr. Arun Kumar Nagar, Adv.
Mr. Mohit Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Alok Sangwan, Sr. AAG
Mr. Rajat Sangwan, adv.
Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Vaibhav Yadav, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that case in hand relates to a commercial transaction between the parties, wherein some shares were sought to be purchased by the complainant from the petitioners. These Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by KANCHAN CHOUHAN Date: 2026.02.28 shares, in turn, had been purchased by the petitioners from 13:44:25 IST Reason:
Sneh Kirti Nagda. However, as he failed to deliver the shares despite receipt of consideration from the 2 petitioners, they were not able to transfer those shares to the complainant.
2. Counsel further referred to an order dated 14.10.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Cr. Rev. No. 426/2025 titled as “Rajesh Kumar Sanghal and Anr. vs. State and Anr.”. Vide aforesaid order, a lien has been marked on a sum of ₹16,57,54,100/- (Rupees Sixteen Crore, Fifty Seven Lakhs, Fifty Four Thousand and One Hundred only) lying in the bank account of M/s Babli Investment Private Limited, to whom Sneh Kirti Nagda had transferred the shares. It was on a complaint filed by the petitioners. It shows the bonafide of the petitioners.
3. One of the arguments raised by the complainant was that no privity of contract existed between Sneh Kirti Nagda and the complainant. The deal was exclusively with the petitioners. To respond to the same, she has referred to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between Sneh Kirti Nagda and the complainant on 17.01.2026 referring to the purchase and sale of the shares in question as well.
4. On oral request made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the complainant M/s R9 Wealth India Pvt. Limited through Kartik Rathi is impleaded as respondent no. 2 in the petition. Amended Memo of Parties be filed in the Registry within one week from today.
5. Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 16.04.2026.
3
6. Mr. Rajat Sangwan, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of State of Haryana. Hence, the formal service of the notice on the said respondent is waived.
7. Service on respondent no. 2 be effected by taking appropriate steps.
8. In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer in connection with FIR No. 460/2025 registered at Police Station DLF, District Gurugram, Haryana subject to the condition that they will cooperate with the investigation. (KANCHAN CHOUHAN) (AKSHAY KUMAR BHORIA) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)