Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajni Singh vs State Of Haryana on 4 November, 2025
CRM-M-56864
56864-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
223-1
CRM-M-56864-2025 2025
Decided on : 04.11.2025
Rajni Singh . . . Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana . . . Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: Mr. Zorawar Singh Chauhan,, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Kanwar Sanjeev Kumar, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Rahul Yadav, Advocate, for the complainant.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH,
VAS J. (Oral)
1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 48 482 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 43 Cr.P.C.), for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed here here-under:-
Name of FIR Date Section(s) Police District Petitioner(s) No. Station Rajni Singh 200 02.05.2022 406, 420 IPC and Section Model Panipat 3 of HPIDFE Act Act, 2013. Town Rewari
2. After hearing the contentions at length on 09.10.2025 while granting interim anticipatory bail, the following order was passed by this Court:-
" 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:
hereunder:-
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2025 15:26:16 :::
CRM-M-56864
56864-2025 -2-
Name and FIR Date Section(s) Police District
Age of the No. Station
petitioner(s)
Rajni Singh, 200 02.05.2022 406, 420 IPC, Model Rewari
aged about 1860 3 of Town
56 years Haryana
Protection of
Interest
Depositors
Financial
Establishment
Act, (HPIDFE)
2.Allegedly, total 1547 person have been defrauded of the amount of Rs.2,85,74,585/- which in fact have been invested by them in Karam Bhumi Real Estate Limited which is primarily run by co co-accused accused namely Manoj Kumar Sengar. As per FIR, there are total 08 accused namel namely, y, 1.
Surinder Kumar; 2. Nirmal Kumar 3. Devender Pal; 4. Manoj Kumar Sengar; 5. Vijay Kumar; 6. Puran Prakash; 7. Rajeshwari Sengar; 8. Rajni Singh (the petitioner herein). Primary allegation against the petitioner is that she conspired with the main accu accused, sed, Manoj Kumar Sengar and other Directors of the Company for alluring the people to make investment in the Company and then to earn profits alongwith other accused without fulfilling the promise.
3. Arguments addressed by counsel for the petitioner is th that at in fact she was Director in the Company uptil the year 2011. He further argues that the present FIR was registered in the year 2022, after more than 11 years from the resignation of the petitioner from alleged Company and after resigning from the Companyy no salary, remuneration, commission etc. has ever been received by her directly or indirectly from the alleged business of the Company. Petitioner has neither signed any document, certificate, bond etc. nor a single penny has been transferred directly in her bank account.
4. He further contends that in the Board meeting of the Company which was held on 4.4.2011 at its registered office, resignation letter of the petitioner was accepted with immediate effect by authorising one another person namely, Devender der Pal Singh to function as Director in place of the petitioner. Counsel also refers to order dated 02.02.2024 passed in CRM-
CRM M 64412-2023 (Annexure P-8)
8) in reference to co co-accused, accused, Devender Pal Singh and submits that said accused has also resigned in the year 2014 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2025 15:26:17 ::: CRM-M-56864 56864-2025 -3- and by addressing the similar plea, was granted anticipatory bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court. Counsel also refers to the order dated 07.05.2025 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM CRM-M-2732 2732 of 2025 (Annexure P-10)
10) and submits that one of the main accused namely, Manoj Kumar Sengar (who is related as petitioner's Jija) has been granted interim regular bail to enable him to pay back the amount which he defrauded from the hundreds of persons. As of now, an amount of Rs.
65 lakhs has already lready been paid back to the concerned complainant(s)/ victims and the said petition is now listed for 04.11.2025.
5. Further, it is addressed that all the offences are maximum punishable for period of 07 years and in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI (2022), 10 SCC 51 and Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, there is no special reason with the Investigating Officer to arrest the petitioner who is ready to join the investigation and to fully cooper cooperate if protected from arrest.
6. Notice of motion.
7. On advance notice, Mr. Neeraj Madan, Sr. DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent State and seeks some time to file status report in the matter. Mr. Vishal Yadav by way of filing Memora Memorandum ndum of Appearance, accepts notice on behalf of complainant / victim victim- Bimla Devi.
8. Learned counsel for the State as well as the complainant vehemently oppose the prayer for interim bail by submitting that the petitioner is having her share in the Company and by manipulating her status has accepted by drawing all the benefits of the fr fraud aud committed by the accused persons in connivance with each other. They further submit that the petitioner is in close relationship with the main accused who was Director in the Company having major share in the Company, thus opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.
9. List alongwith CRM-M-2732 2732 of 2025 on the date already fixed i.e. on 04.11.2025.
10. In the meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating Agency. In the event of her arrest, the petitioner shall be released on ad ad-interim interim bail, subject to her furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Sec Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.).
11. Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over her passport to 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2025 15:26:17 ::: CRM-M-56864 56864-2025 -4- the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if she possesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that she does not possess any passport.
12. It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of the Court."
3. Continuing his submissions and by referring to paragraph 3 of the previous order (ibid), learned counsel for the ppetitioner etitioner submits that it would be a moot question during the course of trial as to whether the petitioner had any active participation or not, particularly when he had already resigned from the company in the year 2011. Learned counsel further contends that that to rebut the said contention, no material or evidence is available with the prosecuting agency or the complainant/victims.
Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, submits that the petitioner is one of the main accused, who, along with others, has allegedly duped a total of 1547 persons by defrauding an amount of ₹2,85,74,585/ ₹2,85,74,585/-.. It is submitted that since the allegations are not severable, the petitioner cannot be treated differently by extending the concession of anticipatory bail.
5. Despite espite being repeatedly asked, no satisfactory response has been furnished by any of the learned counsel for the respondents, including the complainant/victim, as to how the petitioner could be held liable for the alleged fraud, fraud when she had already resigned from the company in the year 2011, whereas the FIR came to be registered after a lapse of about 11 years.
In view of the contentions already recorded and there being no plausible 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2025 15:26:17 ::: CRM-M-56864 56864-2025 -5- explanation forthcoming from the respondents to rebut the same same.
6. However, learned State counsel has filed a status report and, while referring to paragraph paragraph No.13 thereof, submits that in compliance with the order dated 09.10.2025, the petitioner has joined the investigation but has not fully cooperated. I fail to comprehend the stand of the State when no satisfactory explanation has been forwarded by the llearned earned State counsel as to what specific aspect of cooperation is lacking on the part of the petitioner, particularly when no substantial material or evidence has been placed on record in this regard.
7 I deem it appropriate to make the interim order dated date 09.10.2025 absolute. 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 of.
Misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SANJAY SANJAY VASHISTH) VASHISTH JUDGE November 04, 2025 anil Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No 5 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2025 15:26:17 :::