Allowed

Satbir v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Mar 2026CRM-M/16942/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in an FIR alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust arising from a financial dispute under a written agreement. Having joined investigation with no specific grounds shown for custodial interrogation, the interim bail was made absolute and the petition allowed, subject to conditions including passport submission.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail dated 06.05.2025 made absolute, subject to joining investigation as required, Section 482(2) BNSS conditions, and passport submission or affidavit within one week.

Satbir Vs State of Haryana — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRM-M-16942-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

101-1

¶5

CRM-M-16942-2025 Decided on: 20.03.2026

SATBIR

…...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA

…...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

¶12

Present: None for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana, along with ASI Sombir Singh.

¶14

¶15

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

¶16

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:-

¶17

Name of Petitioner(s)	FIR No.	Date	Section(s)	Police Station	District
Satbir, aged	15	15.01.2025	34, 380, 406 and	Badhra	Charkhi
about 60 years			420 of IPC		Dadri

¶18

After hearing the submissions addressed by counsel for the

¶19

petitioner, on 06.05.2025 following order was passed:-

¶20

“Contends, inter alia, that there was a written agreement dated 30.12.2023 (P-2) between the parties and in terms thereof, petitioner has already paid an amount of Rs.1,43,00,000/-(One crore and forty three lakh only) to the complainant side.

¶21

Per contra, learned counsel for complainant vehemently opposed the aforesaid contention on the premise that only an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-(Four

¶22

LAVISHA 2026.03.20 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

¶23

CRM-M-16942-2025

¶24

¶25

Lakh only) has been received and rest of the amount is yet to be paid by the petitioner. Also submitted that petitioner has dismantled the crusher and taken away the entire machinery; thus committed the alleged offence.

¶26

Learned State counsel also supported the complainant while opposing the pre-arrest bail on the ground that apart from machinery, petitioner had taken away the entire goods lying on the site; thus, defrauded the complainant.

¶27

As the writing dated 30.12.2023 (P-2) is not disputed by the complainant; therefore, this Court shall refrain from going into the above disputed factual aspect of receipt of money, while considering the interim pre-arrest bail.

¶28

Posted on 24.07.2025 for further consideration. In the meanwhile, petitioner shall join investigation before the Investigating Officer; but he be not arrested till the next date of hearing.”

¶29

As per the allegations, a financial dispute admittedly arose after execution of the written agreement dated 30.12.2023. Further, as indicated in the order dated 06.05.2025, complainant has not disputed the execution of the said agreement. Therefore, the matter, in all likelihood, hinges upon the determination of the authenticity and validity of the said admitted document by both the parties.

¶30

On the other hand, learned State counsel on instructions, submits that in compliance of the order dated 06.05.2025 passed by this Court, petitioner has already joined the investigation, however, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶32

Admittedly, petitioner has already joined the investigation, and no specific reason has been advanced by learned State counsel during the course of hearing, as to why further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. Moreover, while it remains the prerogative of the

¶33

LAVISHA 2026.03.20 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

¶34

CRM-M-16942-2025 3

¶35

Investigating Officer, based on his satisfaction, to associate the accused with the investigation, such discretion must be exercised on cogent grounds. In the present case, this Court deems it appropriate to make the ad-interim bail order dated 06.05.2025 absolute. Accordingly, present petition is allowed.

¶36

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.

¶37

7. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.

¶38

However, present order would be subject to the submission of passport of the petitioner to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses, within a period of one week from today. Otherwise, he would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport.

¶39

It is clarified that in case, aforesaid condition is not complied with, this order would be considered as non est automatically.

¶40

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE

¶41

20.03.2026 Lavisha

¶42

Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/ NO Whether Reportable: YES/ NO

¶43

LAVISHA 2026.03.20 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

Satbir v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satbir v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jasvir Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Sunny Kumar @ Sunny Saga Vs State of Punjab

Momin Alias Kala Vs State of Haryana

Kulwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Harjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Mohan Singh Vs State of Haryana