Manish Kumar vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Manish Kumar, sought regular bail in FIR No. 337 registered on August 30, 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC. The FIR stemmed from a complaint by Radhika, an advocate, alleging that Gaurav Narula's property in Gurugram was sold via a fake transfer deed. The petitioner claimed to be Gaurav Narula's brother and allegedly used forged documents, including Aadhar and PAN cards, to execute and register the transfer deed. Subsequently, the petitioner sold the plot for Rs. 10,63,67,000/-. He was arrested on August 28, 2025, and confessed to hatching a conspiracy with co-accused to create fake identities and open bank accounts for fraudulent transfer and sale of the property. The investigation regarding the petitioner is complete.

Held

The Court dismissed the petitioner's bail application. It found the allegations against the petitioner to be serious, particularly concerning the offence under Section 467 of the IPC, which carries a sentence of life imprisonment. The Court noted that the petitioner's claim that co-accused Varun Jain was the mastermind and received the majority of the funds lacked basis at this stage. The Court held that the precedents cited by the petitioner's counsel were not applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Furthermore, it reiterated the well-settled proposition that orders granting bail have no precedential value, referencing Gajanand Agarwal v. State of Orissa and others. Considering the gravity of the accusations, the potential quantum of sentence, and the attendant facts, the Court concluded that the petitioner did not deserve bail at this stage. The Court clarified that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in FIR No. 337 registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC, considering the serious allegations of forgery, impersonation, and fraud involving a property transaction. The petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he has been falsely implicated, is not required for further investigation, and is not the primary beneficiary. He argued that the chain of persons involved in impersonation and forgery is yet to be traced, and the money in his account was transferred to multiple entities. He also submitted that the offences are Magistrate-triable, his disclosure statement is inadmissible, charges are yet to be framed, and he has been in custody for over eight months. He further claimed the absconding co-accused, Varun Jain, is the mastermind and received the major share of the money. Reliance was placed on several case precedents. The State's arguments: The State vehemently argued that the petitioner is the prime accused who orchestrated the crime, prepared false documents, forged signatures, and impersonated the victim to register a transfer deed. They highlighted that the property was sold for Rs. 10 crores, with Rs. 7.30 crores transferred to the petitioner's bank account, which was opened using fabricated documents. The State also pointed out that the petitioner withdrew proceeds in cash and purchased property in his wife's name. The investigation is ongoing for co-accused, and the petitioner has antecedents in two other cases, posing risks of absconding, intimidating witnesses, or tampering with evidence.