Anil Yadav and Another v. State of Haryana

IN Anil Yada

State of H

Date of d Date of U

CORAM Present:

SUMEET

¶1seeking g 2023 in F under Se District G

¶2Yadav ha question a THE HIGH COURT OF PUN CHANDIG

av and another

V/s Haryana

decision: 27.07.2026 Uploading : 28.07.2026 M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Adv Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate an Mr. Prashant kharb Budhera, Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Addi Mr. Karan Goel, Deputy Com West Gurugram (through Vid Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior A Mr. Arjun Kaushal, Advocate Ms. Devyani Kaushal, Advoc Mr. Abhimanyu Kaushal, Ad

***** T GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been f grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest b FIR No.75 dated 29.01.2026 r ctions 406, 420, 120-B of IP Gurugram. The prosecution case, as set-r No.1 namely Anil Yadav and ad represented themselves to be and entered into an Agreement

NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH

CRM-M-11922-2026

....Petitioners

....Respondent SUMEET GOEL ocate with nd , Advocate for the petitioners. itional Advocate General Haryan mmissioner of Police, deo Conference).

Advocate with e cate and dvocate for the complainant. filed on behalf of the petition bail under Section 482 of BNS registered for offences punisha PC at Police Station Badshahp -out in the petition in hand, is t d petitioner No.2 namely Sush the absolute owners of the land to Sell dated 23.10.2023 with

na ners SS, able pur, hat hila

complaina ₹40 lacs w cheque pa payments also made reverse si was alleg crores. A willingnes postponin including deliberate notice(s) nor return concealed Court exi the comp allegation

¶3dispute is an Agreem ₹1.40 cro counsel, t ant for a total consideration of ₹ was paid by way of cheque as e ayments of ₹1 crore. Thereafter, of ₹2 crore on 02.01.2024 and e which were allegedly acknow de of the Agreement to Sell. Thu edly paid to the petitioners out o As per the complainant, despi ss to pay the remaining sale c ng the execution of the sale-d the Haryana Assembly Electio r No.1. Subsequently, they com ely avoided the execution of t were served upon them but the ned the money. It has also bee d the fact that acquisition proceed sted in respect of the property, a plainant, induced her into ent ns, the present FIR came to be reg Learned senior counsel for t purely civil in nature arising ou ment to Sell. Learned senior co rs are the lawful owners of the ores through banking channe the allegations with regard to ca

₹9.60 crore. Initially, an amount earnest money, followed by furth according to the complainant, ca d ₹3.58 crore on 18.01.2024 w wledged by the petitioners on us, a total amount of about ₹8 cro of total sale consideration of ₹9 ite her continuous readiness a consideration, the petitioners k deed on one pretext or anoth ons and the medical condition mpletely stopped responding a the sale-deed. Furthermore, le ey neither honoured the agreem en alleged that the petitioners h dings and a status quo order of t and this concealment, according tering the transaction. On the gistered. the petitioners has iterated that ut of a contractual transaction und ounsel has further iterated that e property and have received on ls. According to learned sen ash payments exceeding ₹5 cro

t of her ash ere ore .60 and ept her, of and gal ent had this g to ese der nly nior

are stated when suc any docum the agree herself fa considera have term

09.02.202 instituted of almost of the lan present FI a crimina contained commissi Furthermo already av to be effe that the p by the E investigat continue t submissio

¶4affidavit o d to be completely false, fabric ch huge cash transactions are al mentary proof except alleged en ement. It has been further con ailed to appear before the Sub ation within the stipulated peri minated the Agreement to Sell

¶24It has been further contende any suit for specific performan two years, resorted to criminal p d has substantially increased. It h IR is merely a pressure tactic in al prosecution. It has been furth d in the FIR, even if taken at th on of any offence of cheating, c ore, the entire case is based on vailable with the investigating a ected from the petitioners. Learn petitioners have fully cooperated conomic Offences Wing and h ting agency in response to the n to join the investigation as and w ons, the grant of anticipatory bail Referring to reply/status repo of Vishal, HPS, Assistant Comm

cated and improbable particula lleged to have taken place witho ndorsements on the reverse side ntended that the complainant h b-Registrar with the balance s od and, therefore, the petition l by serving a legal notice da ed that the complainant has nev nce and after an unexplained de proceedings only because the va has been further contended that order to convert a civil dispute in her contended that the allegatio heir face value, do not disclose criminal breach of trust or forge n documentary evidence which agency and no recovery is requir ned senior counsel has emphasiz d with the investigation conduc have already appeared before notice(s) issued to them and sh when required. On strength of the l is entreated for. ort dated 01.04.2026 by way of missioner of Police, EOW-I and

arly out e of has sale ners ver lay lue nto ons ery. h is red zed hall ese f an II,

Gurugram to the pe during the under:

report, le involving respect of to learned enter into sale consi sale-deed that the p and the st question w m, learned State counsel has opp etitioners by arguing that the rs are grave, serious and suppor e course of investigation. The r "15. That the role of t Yadav in the present case is sell dated 23.10.2023 with the for sale of one acre plot at vil During the execution of the a paid through RTGS and later the petitioners through RTGS executed before 10.01.2024. registered within the stipulat forged agreement dated 23.1 after separation of Khewat/K agreement shall remain val petitioners committed fraud an Raising submissions in tand arned State counsel has iterate rs are grave and disclose the co cheating, criminal breach of f a transaction involving an amo d State counsel, the petitioners, o the Agreement to Sell, receive ideration and thereafter delibera on one pretext or another. Lear etitioners have concealed the pe tatus quo order passed by this C which prima facie indicates frau

posed the grant of anticipatory b e allegations levelled against rted by specific material collec relevant part of the reply reads the petitioners Anil Yadav and Sush that they had entered into agreemen e complainant's father Ram Avtar Gu llage Noorpur Jharsa for Rs. 9.60 cro agreement, a sum of Rs.1.40 crore w on, the sum of Rs.6.60 crore was paid S and cash. The sale deed was to However, they did not get the sale d ted time. Rather, the petitioners sen

10.2023 wherein it was mentioned t /Khata numbers by the petitioners, lid for one month. In this way, nd forgery with the complainant." dem with the aforesaid reply/sta ed that the allegations against ommission of cognizable offenc trust and criminal conspiracy ount of nearly ₹8 crore. Accordi after inducing the complainant ed substantial amounts towards ately avoided the execution of rned State counsel has emphasiz endency of acquisition proceedin Court with regard to the property udulent conduct. Furthermore,

bail as hila t to upta ore. was d to be deed nt a that atus ces in ing t to zed ngs

genuinene to Sell, th the partie are all ma

4.1. Court to s Assistant submitted petition, a justice an pointed o phone cal an invest Aadhaar a the arrest these acts intimidate the police conversat accused D to be reg Vishnu K Malhotra, Anil Yad ess of the endorsements made on he source and flow of the money, s and the authenticity of the do atters requiring detailed investiga Learned State counsel has f status report dated 13.07.2026 b Commissioner of Police, He d that during the pendency of attempts have been made to in d to influence the prosecution w out that one of the prime witnes lls from an unknown person wh tigating officer and demanded and PAN details of the complain of petitioner No.1 namely Anil Y s have been intended to obstru e the witnesses. Furthermore, d e obtained the call detail reco tions between the mobile numb r No.1 namely Anil Yadav be Dharmender Yadav. On verificat istered in the name of one Vis Kumar disclosed that his mobil , who was employed in the com dav) who had borrowed his pho

n the reverse side of the Agreem , the financial transactions betwe cuments relied upon by both sid ation. further drawn the attention of t by way of affidavit of Vishal, HP adquarter-III, Gurugram and h the investigation and the pres nterfere with the administration witnesses. Learned State counsel h ss(s) in the case received repea ho falsely impersonated himself confidential documents such nant under the pretext of facilitati Yadav. According to learned Sta uct the ongoing investigation a during the course of investigati ords which reflect 142 telepho ber used for making the calls a sides 414 conversations with c tion, the mobile number was fou shnu Kumar. During investigati le phone had been used by Aj mpany of petitioner No.1 (nam one on the date of occurrence

ent een des this PS, has ent of has f as as ing ate, and on, nic and co-und on, jay ely

making ca BNSS ha specifical and not h apprehend despite ef complaint

25.05.202 Station B the afores by the p material w with evi Moreover interrogat conspirac identify th instant pe

¶5raised su counsel h nature at t intention According alls to clients. The statement of as also been recorded before th ly stated that the voice in the re his own. The investigation is n ding Ajay Malhotra, who has fforts by the investigating agen t of Shatrughan Yadav (prosec 26 under Sections 204, 319 and 6 Badshahpur, Gurugram. Learned said material prima facie establis etitioners to interfere with the witnesses and, therefore, there ex rs are granted the concession of idence, influence witnesses r, the investigation is still at a tion of the petitioners is nece y, verify the financial trail, rec he role of all persons involved. etition is prayed for. Learned senior counsel app ubmissions in tandem with the as iterated that the allegations ca this stage, as the material on reco and inducement from the ve g to learned senior counsel, t

f Vishnu Kumar under Section 1 he learned Magistrate, wherein ecording was that of Ajay Malho now directed towards tracing a not yet joined the investigati ncy. Accordingly, on the basis ution witness), FIR No.312 da 62 of BNS was registered at Pol d State counsel has contended t shes that an attempt has been ma e investigation and influence xists a real apprehension that if anticipatory bail, they may tamp and obstruct fair investigati a crucial stage and the custod essary to ascertain the compl cover the relevant documents a Accordingly, the dismissal of pearing for the complainant h e State counsel. Learned sen annot be termed as merely a civil ord prima facie discloses dishon ery inception of the transacti the material collected during

he otra and of ated lice that ade per on. dial lete and has nior l in nest

course of a pre-pla Agreemen transfer th to the land paid an a paid throu which wa Agreemen demandin seriousnes the dismis

¶6gone throu

¶7allegation levelled i merely gi induced th that they and there allegation acquisitio earlier liti f investigation clearly reflects tha anned conspiracy, induced the nt to Sell by falsely represent he property and intentionally co d. On the basis of such assurance amount of approximately ₹8 cro ugh banking channels and the re as duly acknowledged by the pe nt to Sell. Despite receiving rs deliberately avoided execut ng additional money on one pr ss of the allegations and the activ ssal of the petition in hand is pra I have heard the learned cou ugh the available record of the c As per the material availab ns have been levelled against in the FIR, at this stage, prima iving rise to a civil dispute. As he complainant to part with huge would execute the sale deed; eafter intentionally avoided p ns further reflect concealmen on proceedings and the status qu igation with regard to the prope

at the petitioners, in furtherance e complainant to enter into ting that they were competent oncealed the material facts relati es/representations, the complain ores, out of which ₹1.40 crore w emaining amount was paid in ca etitioners on the reverse side of such a substantial amount, tion of the sale deed and k retext or another. Considering ve role attributed to the petitione ayed for. unsel for the rival parties and ha case. ble on record, indubitably, serio the petitioners. The allegatio facie cannot be brushed aside per the allegations, the petition e amount of money by representi received substantial considerati erforming their obligations. T nt of material facts relating uo order passed by this Court in erty in question. Although learn

e of an to ing ant was ash, kept ers, ave ous ons as ners ing The to an

senior cou received b payments veracity/c stage whi endorsem the financ require d prima fac considere cannot be consequen that the d stage. I transactio dealings w prima fac inception. account o from the and canno anticipato required attributed unsel for the petitioners has argu by the petitioners through bank are fabricated but in the cons correctness of these rival versio ile considering a plea for grant ments on the Agreement to Sell, cial trail and other surrounding etailed investigation. The amou cie indicates the seriousness an d opinion of this Court, the eco e treated at par with ordinary o nces on public trust. The plea dispute is purely civil in nature d In the considered opinion of on pertains to sale and purcha would not, by itself, take away cie disclose dishonest inducem . The question(s) as to wheth of a bona fide dispute or wheth very beginning is a matter whi ot be conclusively adjudicated u ory bail. At the stage of anticip to examine the nature and gra d to the accused. The exact natur

ued that only ₹1.40 crore has be king channels and the alleged ca sidered opinion of this Court on(s) cannot be adjudicated at t of anticipatory bail. The dispu , the alleged acknowledgement( g circumstances are matters wh unt involved is substantial wh nd gravity of the offence. In nomic offences of such magnitu offences as they have far-reachi raised on behalf of the petition does not persuade this Court at t this Court, merely because ase of land or involves moneta y the criminality if the allegatio ment and deception right from t her the transaction has failed er the intention to deceive exis ch requires thorough investigati upon in a petition seeking grant patory bail, the Court is primar avity of accusations and the r re and extent of the involvement

een ash this

(s), ich ich ude ing ners this ary ons on t of rily role

the petit interrogat

¶8breach of attention the State, witness h telephone demanded of facilita found tha Vishnu K recorded b day his m the compa of Ajay M this Cour while con

¶9this stage falsely im instant ca FIR and m At this s discloses tioners requires deeper inve tion of the petitioners may be ess Apart from the allegations f trust, another pertinent nay vita of this Court is that as per the a , during the pendency of the i has submitted a complaint alleg e calls from a person imper d confidential document(s) of th ating the arrest of petitioner N at the mobile number in question Kumar and his statement unde before the learned Magistrate wh mobile phone has been used by any of petitioner No.1 and the vo Malhotra who is yet to be apprehe rt, such conduct is a relevant fa nsidering the prayer for anticipato Furthermore, no cause nay p e, from which it can be deciphe mplicated into the present FIR. ase, the allegations against the material placed on record, are n stage, the material collected active participation and a s

estigation for which custod sential. relating to cheating and crimi al aspect of the matter which crav affidavit dated 13.07.2026 filed investigation, a prime prosecuti ging that he has received repea rsonating as police officer w he complainant on the false pret No.1. During investigation, it w n was registered in the name of o r Section 183 of the BNSS w herein he stated that on the relev Ajay Malhotra, an employee w oice contained in the recording w ended. In the considered opinion actor which cannot be overlook ory bail. plausible cause has been shown, ered that the petitioners have be It goes without saying that in petitioners, as emerging from either vague nor general in natu during investigation prima fa specific role attributable to

dial nal ves by who ext was one was ant with was n of ked , at een ure.

is at nasc plea for g safeguard ought to attributed deeper an stage, the made out and the pr the accus investigat 1039, the rs in the alleged acts of cheating cent stage. It is befitting to men grant of anticipatory bail, the ding individual rights and protec reckon with the magnitude an d to the accused; the need for fai nd wider impact of such alleged ere is no material on record to t against the petitioners. The m reliminary investigation, appear ations. Thus, it is not appropria rs, as it would necessarily tion. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1 Hon'ble Supreme Court held as "6. We find force in the submissi qualitatively more elicitation-orie well-ensconced with a favourable a case like this, effective inter tremendous advantage in disinter materials which would have interrogation would elude if the protected and insulated by a pre interrogated. Very often interroga a mere ritual. The argument tha with the danger of the person b need not be countenanced, for, su accused in all criminal cases. Th police officers would conduct th would not conduct themselves as o

g and conspiracy. The investigati ntion here that while considering Court has to equilibrate betwe cting societal interests. The Co nd nature of the offence; the r ir and free investigation as also d iniquities on the society. At t hold that prima facie case is n material which has come on reco r to establish a reasonable basis ate to grant anticipatory bail to cause impediment in effect 1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (C under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) ion of CBI that custodial interrogation ented than questioning a suspect who e order under Section 438 of the Code rrogation of a suspected person is rring many useful informations and a been concealed. Success in s suspected person knows that he is w e-arrest bail order during the time he ation in such a condition would reduce at the custodial interrogation is frau being subjected to third-degree meth uch an argument can be advanced by he Court has to presume that responsi hemselves in task of disintering offen offenders."

g a een ourt role this not ord for ive Cri) n is o is e. In s of also uch well e is e to ught ods y all ible

¶10alleged fi and the

13.07.202 not deserv case in ha

11.

(i)

(ii) of opinion

(iii)

July 27, 2 Ajay

In view of the gravity of the nancial transaction, the nature o subsequent developments re 26, this Court is of the consider ve the concession of anticipator and. In view of the prevenient rati The instant petition is devoid Nothing said hereinabove sh n upon merits of the case/investig Pending application(s), if any

2026

e allegations, the magnitude of of the evidence yet to be collec eflected in the affidavit da red opinion that the petitioners ry bail in the factual milieu of iocination, it is ordained thus: d of merits and is hereby dismiss hall be deemed to be an expressi gation. y, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE

do