Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Rajesh Kumar Sanghal vs State Of Haryana on 18 May, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No(s). /2026
@SLP(Crl) No. 3138/2026
RAJESH KUMAR SANGHAL & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. This appeal arises from an order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh rejecting the anticipatory bail prayer of the appellant(s) in connection with FIR No. 460/2025 registered at Police Station DLF, District Gurugram, Haryana.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHETAN ARORA Date: 2026.05.19 14:55:49 IST Reason: 14. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant(s), on 25.02.2026, an interim order was passed, which is reproduced below:
“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 shares, in turn, had been purchased by the petitioners from Sneh Kirti Nagda. However, as he failed to deliver the shares despite receipt of consideration from the 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.2
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.
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 3 registered at Police Station DLF, District Gurugram, Haryana subject to the condition that they will cooperate with the investigation.”
5. Upon service of notice, the State is represented.
6. Upon consideration of submissions, we do not find a good reason to discharge the interim protection order granted earlier.
7. This appeal is, accordingly, disposed of by making the interim order absolute subject to the following conditions:
a) Within three weeks from today, the appellant(s) shall submit bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court along with an undertaking that they shall co-operate in the trial/investigation; and
b) They shall submit an additional undertaking that they will not 4 threaten the witnesses or tamper the evidence.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………………………….J [MANOJ MISRA] …………………………………………….J [VIPUL M. PANCHOLI] New Delhi;
May 18, 2026 5 ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.12 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 Criminal Appeal No(s). /2026 @SLP(Crl) No. 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 & ANR. Respondent(s) IA No. 55625/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 58586/2026 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES Date : 18-05-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI For Petitioner(s) :
Mrs. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sudhir Naagar, AOR Mr. Chander Mohan Khatana, Adv. Mr. Manohar Naagar, Adv. Mr. Arun Kumar Nagar, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kasana, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. Alok Sangwan, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR 6 Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Yadav, Adv. Mr. Harsh Mehla, Adv.
Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv.
Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Vikram Singh, Adv. Mr. Prateek Parasher, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order placed on the file.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(CHETAN ARORA) (SAPNA BANSAL) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) 7