Sayed Zoheb Ahmad Vs State of Haryana

Present petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the B.N.S.S .’) has been filed for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in FIR No.417 dated 27.12.2024, under Sections 418 & 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), registered at Police Station Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad.

¶17

(2) Allegations are that petitioner duped de facto complainant to the tune of Rs.27,00,000/- while not making payment for the goods supplied to his company namely M/s Star Mount Beverages Pvt. Ltd.

¶18

(3) Learned counsel contends that petitioner was granted interim bail by this Court, vide order dated 20.02.2025 and in pursuance thereof, he has already joined the investigation; hence, his custodial interrogation is not required.

¶19

DIWAKER GULATI 2025.05.12 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

-1-

¶21

CRM-M-7955-2025

¶22

(4) Learned State counsel, on instructions from the quarter

¶23

concerned, acknowledged the above factual position, and submits that as on today, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required.

¶24

(5) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the

¶25

paper-book.

¶26

(6) It transpires that petitioner was granted interim bail by this Court, vide order dated 20.02.2025 and the relevant part of the order reads as under:-

¶27

“Status report filed by way of affidavit dated 19.02.2025 of Mahesh Kumar, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ballabgarh Zone, Faridabad, on behalf of respondent-State, is taken on record. Copy thereof supplied to the opposite side.

¶28

Registry to do the needful.

¶29

Contends, inter alia, that complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, is already pending between the parties.

¶30

Posted for 09.04.2025.

¶31

In the meanwhile, petitioner shall join investigation before the Investigating Officer; but he be not arrested till the next date of hearing.”

¶32

(7) It is duly acknowledged by learned State Counsel that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, petitioner has joined investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required.

¶33

(8) In view of the above, there is no justification to deny the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Consequently, present

¶34

DIWAKER GULATI 2025.05.12 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

-2-

CRM-M-7955-2025

-3-

petition is allowed; interim order dated 20.02.2025 is made absolute subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

¶39

(9) It is also made clear that petitioner shall fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer as and when called for further investigation.

¶40

(10) The above observations be not construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case; rather confined only to decide the bail matter.

¶41

(11) It is also clarified that in case of any recurrence on the part of petitioner, State would be at liberty to move an appropriate application for recalling of this order.

¶42

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

¶43

06.05.2025 d.gulati	(MAHABIR SINGH JUDGE	SINDHU)
Whether speaking / reasoned :	Yes	No
Whether Reportable :	Yes	No

¶44

DIWAKER GULATI 2025.05.12 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

-3-

Sayed Zoheb Ahmad v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayed Zoheb Ahmad v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narinder Pal Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another

Harbhajan Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another

Manoj Vs State of Haryana

Baljinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gyan Prakash Sarawgi Vs State of Haryana and Another

Amit Mittal and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.