Raj Kumar And Anr vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioners, Raj Kumar and Anchal Rani, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 99 dated 24.02.2024, registered for offences including cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust. The FIR alleged that the petitioners, along with others, used a cheque for Rs. 5,16,000/- intended for GST payment to create a demand draft in favour of a company, causing a loss of Rs. 4,16,32,752/- between July 2017 and March 2023. The investigation was ongoing. The petitioners contended that the matter was settled through a compromise/Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.06.2024, a fact confirmed by the complainant's counsel, who had no objection to the bail. The State opposed the bail, citing the gravity of the offence and ongoing investigation.

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail petition. The Court noted that the dispute pertained to accounts and had been settled through a compromise (Annexure P-1), with the complainant's counsel offering no objection. The petitioners were ready to join the investigation. The Court reasoned that no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in custody, given the settlement and their willingness to cooperate. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court granted anticipatory bail. The operative directions were that the petitioners shall not be arrested and, if arrested, shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting/investigating officer, subject to conditions including joining the investigation when required, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving the country without prior permission, as provided under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in light of the alleged fraud and ongoing investigation? (Question of law and fact, turning on Sections 406, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 438 Cr.P.C.). Petitioner's arguments: The dispute was settled by a compromise dated 14.06.2024, and the complainant's counsel has no objection to the grant of anticipatory bail. The petitioners are ready to join the investigation and abide by any conditions. Therefore, their arrest is unnecessary. Respondent's (State) arguments: The petitioners have committed a significant fraud, and considering the gravity of the offences, they are not entitled to anticipatory bail. The investigation is still in progress.