Manoj Kumar vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court held that the present petition deserved to be allowed, granting the petitioner anticipatory bail. The Court reasoned that while the FIR alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code, the facts and circumstances, when analyzed against established legal propositions, indicated that the dispute was primarily of a civil nature. The Court referenced Supreme Court pronouncements in 'Vesa Holding Vs. State of Kerala' and 'Ravinder Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan', reiterating that every breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless there is deception from the inception. The Court also noted that the defence put forward by the accused could not be disregarded at the anticipatory bail stage and that purely civil disputes should not be criminalized. Furthermore, the Court observed that the evidence was largely documentary and already collected, and denial of custodial interrogation would not harm the investigation. The Court also considered the argument regarding repeated inquiries. Consequently, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation, not leaving the country without permission, and not influencing witnesses.

Facts

The petitioner, Manoj Kumar, approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail after his application was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The FIR, lodged on 20.06.2025, alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant alleged that the petitioner and co-accused defrauded him by making false claims and using forged documents, leading to the misappropriation of funds. The complainant claimed to have been offered partnership in sand mining leases in the Yamuna river. He alleged that he was induced to deposit substantial sums of money, both through bank transfers and in cash, into the petitioner's firm accounts for purported expenses, partnership shares, and environmental clearances. Despite these payments, the complainant alleged that a written agreement was not executed promptly, and the mining work did not commence as promised.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose a criminal offence, or if the dispute is purely civil in nature, thereby warranting anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the entire dispute was civil in nature, arising from a breach of contract. He relied on Supreme Court judgments in 'Vesa Holding Vs. State of Kerala' and 'Ravinder Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan', arguing that every breach of contract does not amount to cheating and that a civil dispute should not be given the colour of a criminal case. He also pointed to a previous inquiry where no criminality was established and argued against repeated inquiries on the same issues, citing 'Surinder Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.'. The petitioner further argued that custodial interrogation was not necessary as the evidence was documentary and already collected. Respondent's arguments: The State of Haryana, through the Additional Advocate General, likely argued that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and that the petitioner's involvement in alleged fraud and the use of forged documents warranted custodial interrogation. The complainant's counsel would have supported the registration of the FIR and opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, highlighting the alleged deception and financial loss.