Manoj Gulati vs. State Of Haryana And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Manoj Gulati, filed two petitions under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents Ajay Maini and Vanshaj Maini. The bail was granted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, in FIR No. 68 dated March 24, 2026, registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner alleged that the respondents, on behalf of their companies, engaged him to supply manpower, assuring timely payment of wages, ESI, PF, and GST. The petitioner supplied manpower but the respondents failed to clear outstanding dues of ₹58,00,000. The petitioner also alleged threats. The respondents were granted interim anticipatory bail on April 13, 2026, and the bail was made absolute on May 29, 2026. The petitioner contended that the respondents failed to cooperate with the investigation, produce documents, or facilitate recovery of the amount, and that the Additional Sessions Judge ignored the fact that the respondents were facing multiple civil and criminal cases.

Held

The High Court held that the discretion to grant bail was not wrongly or arbitrarily exercised by the Additional Sessions Judge. The court found that the observations made in the orders granting interim and absolute anticipatory bail were based on a correct appreciation of the facts and law. The respondents had joined the investigation pursuant to the interim bail order, and the court reiterated the principle that anticipatory bail could not be refused solely on the ground that the disputed amount of ₹58,00,000/- had not been recovered. The court noted that the orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge were detailed, well-reasoned, and reflected due application of judicial mind. The court found no compelling reasons for the cancellation of bail, especially since the investigating agency was not aggrieved by the grant of bail and there was no allegation that the respondents had violated the terms of the bail, misused the concession, or interfered with the investigation. The court relied on the principle that liberty once granted should not be withdrawn without compelling justification and that bail orders can be set aside only if found unjustified, illegal, or perverse, which was not the case here. The petitions were dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents should be cancelled due to alleged non-cooperation with the investigation, failure to produce documents, and non-facilitation of recovery of the disputed amount, thereby constituting misuse of liberty or interference with the investigation? 2. Whether the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents was unjustified, illegal, or perverse, warranting cancellation even in the absence of post-bail misconduct? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the respondents failed to comply with the directions to join the investigation and produce financial documents. They did not cooperate and did not facilitate the recovery of the outstanding amount. The petitioner contended that these actions amounted to misuse of the concession of bail and interference with the investigation. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the Additional Sessions Judge ignored the fact that the respondents were facing multiple civil and criminal cases, which should have been a ground for denying or cancelling bail. The petitioner relied on the principles laid down in Sanjay Kumar Jangid & Another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal & Another and Dolat Ram Vs. State of Haryana regarding the grounds for cancellation of bail. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State of Haryana. However, the reasoning of the Additional Sessions Judge, as discussed in the judgment, suggests that the dispute was prima facie civil in nature, involving a disputed amount, and that criminal law should not be used for recovery of civil dues. The State, through the Additional Sessions Judge's order, implicitly supported the grant of bail by not opposing it or by not presenting arguments for its cancellation.