Sukhmander Singh @ Bobby vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court held that in light of the compromise effected between the petitioner and the complainant, evidenced by Annexure P-7, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not required. The compromise, signed by both parties, indicated the petitioner had paid Rs. 2,50,000/- to the complainant as his share out of the alleged Rs. 10 lakhs. The Court found that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner to jail. Consequently, the petition was allowed, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds and adhering to the conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The Investigating Officer was permitted to call the petitioner for investigation by issuing written notice. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were for deciding the bail petition only and not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, Sukhmander Singh @ Bobby, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0331 dated June 29, 2025, registered under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The complainant alleged that the petitioner and co-accused induced him to become a dealer/distributor for an Ayurvedic Company, "KAPIVA," promising substantial monthly earnings. The complainant paid Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash and was assured of dealership in his son's name, including obtaining a GST number. The accused allegedly used their GST number for initial sales and promised to adjust the complainant's money. However, the complainant did not receive products, profits, or his initial investment, totaling approximately Rs. 10.25 lakhs. The complainant discovered the accused were involved in a large fraud, using fake firms and documents, and committing a GST scam. A compromise was reached between the petitioner and complainant, with the petitioner paying Rs. 2,50,000/-.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose a cognizable offense warranting custodial interrogation of the petitioner, or if the matter is essentially a civil dispute given the alleged compromise? (Section 482, BNSS, 2023). The petitioner argued that the case was a civil dispute given a criminal color to pressurize him, that the complainant entered into a commercial agreement willingly, and that a compromise had been reached. The petitioner also stated readiness to join the investigation and was not required for interrogation. The State opposed the bail petition, contending specific and serious allegations of fraud exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs. The complainant's counsel conceded that the matter had been compromised.