Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anand Jhawar vs State Of Haryana on 16 March, 2026
CRM-M--471-2026 -11-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
335 CRM-M-471-2026
Date of Decision: 16.03.2026
.2026
Anand Jhawar
...Petitioner.
v.
State of Haryana
...Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY.
Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vipul Joshi, Advocate,
Dr. Isha Mehta, Advocate and
Mr. Anish Kansal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vishal Singh, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Samarth Suri, Advocate for
Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the complainant.
****
AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral)
1. This is Ist petition for grant of bail filed by petitioner u/s 483 of BNSS, in case FIR No. 0375 dated 21.06.2024 21.06.2024,, registered against him under Sections 420, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Sector-8, Sector Faridabad Faridabad.
2. Relevant facts as emerging from the documents on record be noticed hereinbelow:-
hereinbelow:
Shri Pradeep Bhalla, Regional Legal Manager with Axis Bank Ban Ltd.,, set criminal law in motion by filing a complaint pointing therein that one Neetu Mehndiratta (A1),, Prop. of Rehan Associates, is involved in the GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M--471-2026 -22- business of running an a agency whereby she processes loan applications for various financial institutions.
institution Anand Jhawar (present petitioner) approached the complainant Bank through her (A1) to avail used car loan facility on vehicle BMW 7 Series bearing registration No. RJ RJ-45-CS-1297.
1297.
At that point in time, he (P) had represented himself to be owner of the said vehicle which was financed from BMW Indian Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Accused also represented that he wishes to get the loan facility availed from BMW Finance transferred to the complainant Bank and also to avail top up loan facility. Copy of the registration certificate of the vehicle reflecting the hypothecation with BMW Finance was also tendered. The entire documentation was rooted through accused No.1, who assured that sshe he had checked the credentials of Anand Jhawar (P) as also has completed all due diligence. It was also assured that the entire transaction including the change of hypothecation from BMW Finance shall by duly undertaken under her supervision. Relying totally totally on her assurance/representation, complainant Bank agreed to approve and sanction loan of Rs.1,37,70,000/-
Rs.1,37,70,000/ to Anand Jhawar (P). It was also assured that the Security would be cre crea ated in the name of complainant Bank. Further, as per terms of the loan agreement, upon disbursal of the loan, hypothecation of BMW Finance was to be removed and that of complainant Bank had to be endorsed. Complainant Bank alleges that after loan was advanced advanced, both h the accused became nonchalant. They started evading the ca calls.
lls. When the Security was not being created an final enquiry was conducted, during which it came to the notice of the Bank that the facts had been manipulated to deliberately dupe the bank. Thus, the allegation is that despite having received loan amountt from complainant Bank, petitioner did not create the Security by GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M--471-2026 -33- hypothecating the vehicle in favour of Bank. It also transpired that similar transaction had been undertaken by accused from IDFC First Bank Ltd. Primarily with this backdrop, police aut authorities horities were requested to catch hold of all those who were involved in the incident as also to initiate appropriate proceedings against them. On the basis of complaint, the above mentioned FIR came to be registered.
Investigations were set into motion. Relevant documents were collected. Petitioner was arrested on 21.9.2025 21.9.2025. During interrogation, he confessed to his involvement in the offence, the modus operandi used by him and co-accused accused Neetu, Neetu as also got BMW car recovered.
Petitioner moved an application plication for grant of bail before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad.. The same came to be dismissed in terms of order dated 17.10.2025.
.2025. Aggrieved of which, the present petition has been filed for grant of bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is a well reputed businessman and for the last few years has been facing financial crunch. He needed funds and during this period, came in contact with one Sanjay Gupta, Gupta Proprietor of 'Finbuild Finbuild T Technologies Pvt. Ltd.',, who was acting a Direct Selling Agent (DSA) of all banks and engaged in sourcing and processing loan applications for various financial institutions. Petitioner being the owner of two luxury vehicles, namely, BMW BMW--X6 bearing registration registr No. RJ- 45CT-8503 8503 and a BMW BMW-7 Series No. RJ--45- CS-1297, intended to avail top up/refinance loans on both vehicles to meet his urgent financial and business requirements. Acting on the assurance of aforesaid Sanjay Gupta, petitioner handed over two aapplication pplication forms for his both the vehicles along with photocopies of Registration Certificates/ GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M--471-2026 -44- Insurances etc. Certain columns were advised to be left blank by Sanjay Gupta on the ground that the same would be filled up after estimation of the loan amount.
amount Admittedly, complainant Bank sanctioned loan against the BMW-7 7 Series vehicle which was earlier financed by 'BMW BMW India Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.' Ltd In furtherance thereof, demand draft No. 979211 for Rs.1,14,26,366/ was issued in favour of BMW Financ Rs.1,14,26,366/- Financee India Pvt. Ltd. towards full and final closure of the existing loan. Second demand draft No. 979209 for Rs.22,91,403/-
Rs.22,91,403/ was issued in favour of petitioner. Consequently, the earlier loan with BMW Finance towards BMW 7 series eries stood paid.
Thereafter, petitioner pe handed over all the requisite documents and other necessary documents to Sanjay Gupta for completion of hypothecation formalities in favour of Axis Bank. It was due to deliberate inaction, gross negligence on the part of aforementioned Sanjay Gupta ta that the said documents were never submitted to Axis Bank. All this while petitioner was under the bonafide belief that hypothecation in favour of Axis Bank has been completed. He was shocked to learn that criminal proceedings have been got initiated by Axis Bank leveling baseless allegations. Enquiries made at his own level further revealed that aforesaid Sanjay Gupta instead of processing loan, unauthorizedly forwarded the signed loan applications and documents to another DSA, namely, M/s Rehan Assoc Associates iates and that too without his (P's) consent. He also met the Bank officials and explained his position and also assured to repay the due amount.
Learned earned counsel contends that from the sequence of events, it is clear that petitioner did not have any dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time when the loan amount was sanctioned by the complainant Bank Bank.. Loan was availed through regular banking channels, the terms and conditions of GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M--471-2026 -55- which were governed by written agreements and the entire transaction is subject to contractual remedies available to the Bank under law.
Continuing further, learned counsel contends that in the light of challan having been filed, the entire case of complainant being based on documents, which are already in possession of ppolice officials, as is the car in question, petitioner, who has been in custody since 21.9.2025, deserves a lenient view to be taken in favour, more so, when prospect of completion of trial (offences being triable by Magistrate) in the near future is quite remote, remote as none of the prosecution witnesses have been examined. When viewed in the factual scenario of the case in hand, his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose as the same would not only be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, including right to speedy trial but would also be against the principle of "Bail is a general rule and incarceration is an exception". Prayer for allowing the petition has been made.
4. Per contra, while opposing the request for grant of bail, learned State counsel accompanied by learned counsel for complainant Bank submit that systematic fraud has been played by petitioner in collusion with other accused. As a consequence of which, wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.1,37,70,000/ ,37,70,000/- has been caused to the complainant Bank. It is further the submission of both the counsel that if extended the concession of bail, the likelihood of petitioner fleeing from the process of justice by not appearing in the Court and overawing the complainant and other related witnesses, are quite high.
high Dismissal of petition has been prayed for.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
GURBACHAN SINGH2026.03.23 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M--471-2026 -66-
6. It is settled that grant or refusal of bail is the discretion of the Court. Factors to be kept in mind while granting the concession of bail have been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases. The essence being that while exercising powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (Pari Pari materia to Section 483 of BNSS), the Court has to take into consideration various para meters including the nature of the charge, evidence, seriousness and gravity of offence, punishments to be awarded to a person, if he is convicted his past antecedents etc. Thus, there can be no straight jacket convicted, formula for exercising the discretion and each case has to be examined on its peculiar facts.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, had held as under:-
under:
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation vation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that ssome ome un- un convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M--471-2026 -77- secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, `necessity' is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the C Constitution onstitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, y, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.
23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would bee improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an un-convicted convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.
XXX XXX XXX
46. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardize the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M--471-2026 -88- are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI.
47. In the view we have taken, it may not be necessary to refer and discuss other issues canva canvassed ssed by the learned counsel for the parties and the case laws relied on in support of their respective contentions. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion regarding the other legal issues canvassed by learned counsel for the parties.
48. In the result, we order that the appellants be released on bail on their executing a bond with two solvent sureties, each in a sum of Rs.5 5 lakhs to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi on the following conditions ::-
(a) The appellants shall ll not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts or the case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority.
(b) They shall remain present before the Court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. If they want to remain absent, then they shall take prior permission of the court and in case of unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, they shall immediately give intimation to the appropriate court and also a to the Superintendent, CBI and request that they may be permitted to be present through the counsel.
(c) They will not dispute their identity as the accused in the case.
GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M--471-2026 -99-
(d) They shall surrender their passport, if any (if not already surrendered), and d in case, they are not a holder of the same, they shall swear to an affidavit. If they have already surrendered before the Ld. Special Judge, CBI, that fact should also be supported by an affidavit.
(e) We reserve liberty to the CBI to make an appropriate appropriat application for modification/recalling the order passed by us, if for any reason, the appellants violate any of the conditions imposed by this Court."
In Bihar Fodder Scam case, Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking into consideration the seriousness of the charges alleged and the maximum sentence of imprisonment that could he imposed including the fact that the appellants were in jail for a period more than six months as on the date of passing of the order, was of the view that the further detention of the appellants as pre-trial prisoners would not serve any purpose.
In Dipak Shubhaschandra Mehta v. CBI, 2012(4) SCC 134, 134 Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"18. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken, en, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly, where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. The Court granting bail has to consider, among other circumstan circumstances, ces, the factors such as a) the GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M--471-2026 -10 10- nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; b) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant and; c) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. In addition to the same, the Court while considering a petition for grant of bail in a non-bailable bailable offence apart from the seriousness of the offence, likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and tampering with the prosecution witnesses, have to be noted."
noted.
(emphasis added).
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023(1) SCC (Crl.) 1, elaborated upon the factors to be kept in mind while deciding the bail petitions in economic offences and held that the law laid down in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791, will govern the field. In P. Chidambaram's case (supra), it was held as under:-
"Thus from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on either side including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court, it could be deduced that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. However, while considering the same the gravity of the offence is an aspect which is required to be kept in view by the Court. The gravity for thee said purpose will have to be gathered from the facts and circumstances arising in each case. Keeping in view GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M--471-2026 -11 11- the consequences that would befall on the society in cases of financial irregularities, it has been held that even economic offences would fall under nder the category of "grave offence" and in such circumstance while considering the application for bail in such matters, the Court will have to deal with the same, being sensitive to the nature of allegation made against the accused. One of the circumstan circumstances ces to consider the gravity of the offence is also the term of sentence that is prescribed for the offence the accused is alleged to have committed. Such consideration with regard to the gravity of offence is a factor which is in addition to the triple tes testt or the tripod test that would be normally applied. In that regard what is also to be kept in perspective is that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case since there is no such bar created in the relevant enactment passed by the legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence provides so. Therefore, the underlining conclusion is that irrespective of the nature and gravity of charge, the precedent of another case alone will not be the basis sis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have a bearing on principle. But ultimately the consideration will have to be on case to case basis on the facts involved therein and securing the presence of the accused to stand trial.
trial."
7. Reverting back to the facts of the case in hand, factual aspects leading to lodging of registration of FIR have already been noticed in para 2 of this order. In view of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M--471-2026 -12 12- petitioner, but without commenting further on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, taking into consideration the fact that all the offences are triable by Magistrate, petitioner has been in custody since 21.9.2025, investigations are complete but the prospect of completion of trial in near future is bleak, this Court is of the opinion that his (P) further incarceration would not only be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, including right to speedy trial but would also be against the principle of "Bail " l is a general rule and incarceration is an exception exception"" as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dataram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131.
8. Resultantly, petitioner is granted the concession of bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds along with two local sound sureties to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and that he will not leave the territorial jurisdiction without seeking prior permission of the concerned Court. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:
conditions:-
(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the learned trial court and shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.
(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M--471-2026 -13 13-
facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.
(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.
(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number to the Trial Court forthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion of the trial and in case for any reason, the petitioner seeks to change any of the aforesaid, the same shall be done only with prior intimation to the learned Trial Court, stating the reason for the same.
(viii) The petitioner willl appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.
(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and it is made clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.
10. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.
(AARADHNA SAWHNEY)
16.03.2026 JUDGE
gbs
Whether Speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
GURBACHAN SINGH
2026.03.23 14:43
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document