Upkar Alias Upkar Singh v. State of Haryana

IN Upkar @

State of H

Date of d Date of U

CORAM Present:

SUMEET

¶1Nagarik S for grant No.64 da Sections 3 District R

¶2written co allegation Manager conversan alleged th plastic gr

THE HIGH COURT OF PUN CHANDIG

Upkar Singh

V/s Haryana

decision: 23.04.2026 Uploading : 24.04.2026 M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Mr. Amardeep Sheoran, Adv Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Ha ***** T GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been file Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereina of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to ated 23.03.2026, registered fo 316(2), 318(4), and 61(2) of BN Rewari. The FIR in question has b omplaint made by Ankur son ns in the complaint, the comp in the HR Department of Fulkaw nt with the transactions pertain hat on 13.03.2026, a consignme ranules (1500 kg PBT and 200

NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH

CRM-M-19924-2026

....Petitioner

....Respondent SUMEET GOEL vocate for the petitioner. aryana. ed under Section 482 of Bharat after to be referred as 'the BNS o the petitioner in case bearing F r the offences punishable und NS, 2023, at Police Station Koso been registered on the basis of of Shri Kishori Lal. As per plainant is employed as a Sen wa Minda Electric Pvt. Ltd. and ning to the company. It has be ent comprising 3500 kilograms 00 kg POM) was received by

iya S') FIR der ola, f a nior d is een complaina FSK125-2 to KFI, registratio challan N

16.03.202 that the a driver Pr disclosed had been at Bawal. firm nam misapprop through m supplied 2 Invoice N No. 9000 Solution through d per the co persons to through c been alleg (petitione in conspi

ant company from Furukawa Sa 26 TAX 0254. On the same day Plot No. 38, Phase-II, Sec on No. HR55AE0686 driven b No. 90000539 and e-way bill No. 26, the complainant company wa aforesaid consignment had not raveen appeared before the that, on the instructions of co-diverted and offloaded at a scrap . It was further revealed that th ely Prime Trade Solution. It h priated material was allegedly r manipulated transactions. Furthe 2000 kg of POM to the complai No. 016 which was then forward 00540. Similarly, 1800 kg of P on 16.03.2026 vide Invoice No delivery challan No. 90000541. omplainant, was part of a fraud o misappropriate the original c circular trading. On the basis o ged that the driver Praveen, alon r herein), Punit and Pankaj (own racy and committed fraud and

angyo, Gurugram, vide invoice N y, the said material was dispatch ctor-05, through vehicle beari by Praveen, along with delive 392207170276. Subsequently, as informed by an employee of K been received. Upon inquiry, complainant on 18.03.2026 a -accused persons, the consignm p shop owned by one Punit situa he goods were thereafter sold to has been further disclosed that reintroduced into the supply ch ermore, the Prime Trade Soluti inant company on 14.03.2026 v ed to KFI through delivery chal BT was supplied by Prime Tra o. 017 and was again sent to K This sequence of transactions, dulent scheme used by the accus onsignment and conceal the sa of the aforesaid allegations, it h ng with co-accused Shyam, Upk ner of Prime Trade Solution), ac criminal breach of trust with

No. hed ing ery on KFI ent ated o a ain ion ide lan ade KFI as sed me has kar complaina been regis

¶3petitioner ulterior m iterated th incident conjecture in the init the cours accused p According hearsay st the petitio that the pe the transp persons w material o for divers transactio are vague petitioner further co evidence therefore,

ant company. On these set of al stered and investigation ensued. Learned counsel for the r has been falsely implicated i motive to harass and humiliate h hat the petitioner has no direc and has been roped in only es. It has been further contended tial complaint and his alleged inv se of investigation on the basi persons which has no eviden g to learned counsel, the entire tatement(s) without any indepen oner to the alleged misappropriat etitioner is merely an employee o portation of the goods nor any au with regard to delivery of the con on record to suggest that the pe sion of the goods or derived an on. Learned counsel has emphasi e, omnibus and do not attribu r so as to attract the ingredients o ontended that the entire case is which are already in possession the custodial interrogation of th

llegations, the FIR in question h

petitioner has iterated that into the FIR in question with him. Learned counsel has furth ct role whatsoever in the alleg on the basis of suspicion a d that the petitioner was not nam volvement has surfaced only duri s of disclosure statements of c ntiary value in the eyes of la prosecution case solely rests up ndent corroboration which can li tion. It has been further contend of KFI and has neither control ov uthority to direct the driver or oth nsignment. Furthermore, there is etitioner has issued any instructi ny wrongful gain from the alleg ized that the allegations in the F ute any specific overt act to of the offences alleged. It has be s primarily based on documenta n of the investigating agency, a he petitioner is neither required n

has an her ged med ing co-aw. pon ink ded ver her ion ged FIR een ary warranted the FIR w Learned c and hence bars. On entreated

¶4anticipato petitioner that the involveme to learned stated to premedita consignm destinatio petitioner accused, investigat other acc counsel, t the petiti conspirato contended hamper th

d. Moreover, there is an unexp which casts serious doubt on the v counsel asserts that the petitione e no useful purpose would be s strength of aforesaid submission for. Per contra, learned State c ory bail to the petitioner by argu r are grave and serious in nature. investigation conducted so far ent of the petitioner in the com d State counsel, the petitioner, w have misused his official p ated criminal conspiracy, fa ment of plastic granules to a scr on. It has been further conten r stands substantiated from the as well as from the material tion, including CDR (call detail r cused persons at the relevant t the investigation is at crucial st oner is necessary to recover ors and ascertain the extent o d that the grant of anticipatory b he ongoing investigation. Accor

plained delay in the registration veracity of the prosecution versi er is ready to join the investigati served by sending him behind ns, the grant of anticipatory bail counsel has opposed the grant uing that the allegations against Learned State counsel has itera r has clearly revealed the act mmission of the offence. Accordi while working as a Store Keeper position and in furtherance of acilitated the diversion of rap dealer at Bawal instead of nded that the complicity of disclosure statements of the c l collected during the course records) between the petitioner a time. According to learned St tage and custodial interrogation forged documents, identify oth f conspiracy. It has further be bail, at this stage, would seriou rdingly, a prayer has been made

of on. ion l is of ted ive ing r, is f a its co-of tate of her een usly the dism investigat

¶5gone throu

¶6Hon'ble Yashwant whereof r

missal of the instant petition tion into the alleged offence. I have heard the learned cou ugh the available record of the c It would be apposite to re Supreme Court titled as Kisho t Patil and another passed in reads as under: "74. Ordinarily, arrest is a pa intended to secure several purp which the accused may provide material facts and relevant infor hamper the investigation. Pre-ar the individual's right to pers investigating agency to interroga collected and to collect more info relevant information. xxx

xxx xxx

xxx

¶75Observing that the arrest is secure several purposes, in Adr Dharan Das v. State of W.B., (20 it was held as under : (SCC p. 313 "19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of secure several purposes. The accu regarding various facets of m aftermath of the crime and the co crime. There may be circumstan information leading to discovery curtail his freedom in order to ena hindrance and to protect witnesse of the crime, to prevent his disap the locality. For these or other re part of the process of investigati

in order to facilitate effect unsel for the rival parties and ha case. efer herein to a judgment of or Vishwasrao Patil vs. Deep SLP(Crl) No.1125-2022, relev art of the process of the investigat poses. There may be circumstances de information leading to discovery rmation. Grant of anticipatory bail m rrest bail is to strike a balance betw onal freedom and the right of ate the accused as to the material so formation which may lead to recovery

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx a part of the investigation intended ri Dharan Das v. State of W.B. [A 005) 4 SCC 303 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 93 3, para 19) of the process of investigation intended used may have to be questioned in de motive, preparation, commission a onnection of other persons, if any, in nces in which the accused may prov of material facts. It may be necessary able the investigation to proceed with es and persons connected with the vic ppearance, to maintain law and order easons, arrest may become an inevita ion. The legality of the proposed arr

ive ave pak ant tion s in y of may ween far y of d to Adri 33] , d to etail vide y to hout ctim r in able CRM-M-19924-2026

cannot be gone into in an applica role of the investigator is well interference by the court in the court ordinarily will not interfere the arrest of the accused in a restraining arrest, if passed under Section 438 of the Code investigation, which cannot, at an Code."

¶76In Siddharam Satlingapp [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre 694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514], t and parameters to be considered was held that the nature and the role of the accused must be prope and that the court must evalua accused very carefully. It was consider whether the accusations injuring or humiliating the applic

¶77After referring to Siddhar Satlingappa Mhetre v. State o

(2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] and anticipatory bail can be granted o Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar

(2012) 4 SCC 379 : (2012) 2 SCC under : (SCC p. 386, para 19) "19. Parameters for grant of an required to be satisfied and furth must record the reasons therefor. exceptional circumstances where the applicant has falsely been enr his liberty. (See D.K. Ganesh Ba Babu v. P.T. Manokaran, (2007) State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. S Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Hu 213 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 176] Aggarwal [Union of India v. Pa 305 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 1] .)"

ation under Section 438 of the Code. defined and the jurisdictional scope process of investigation is limited. T e with the investigation of a crime or w cognizable offence. An interim or while dealing with an applicat e will amount to interference in ny rate, be done under Section 438 of a Mhetre v. State of Maharash v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 S the Supreme Court laid down the fact d while dealing with anticipatory bail gravity of the accusation and the ex erly comprehended before arrest is m ate the available material against also held that the court should a s have been made only with the objec cant by arresting him or her. ram Satlingappa Mhetre [Siddhar of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 69 d other judgments and observing t only in exceptional circumstances, in r [Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bih C (Cri) 468] , the Supreme Court held nticipatory bail in a serious offence her while granting such relief, the co Anticipatory bail can be granted only the court is prima facie of the view t roped in the crime and would not mis abu v. P.T. Manokaran [D.K. Gan ) 4 SCC 434 :(2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 34 Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain [State usain Mohd. S. Husain, (2008) 1 S and Union of India v. Padam Nar adam Narain Aggarwal, (2008) 13 S

The e of The with rder tion f the htra SCC tors l. It xact ade also ct of ram 94 : that Jai har, d as are ourt y in that suse esh 45] , e of SCC rain

¶7serious a perusal of instant ca granules w destinatio manipulat the record accused i company

Economic offences

¶78Power under Section 438 CrP to be exercised sparingly; mor Economic offences stand as a diff fabric of the society. In Director Jain [Directorate of Enforceme 105 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 510], it w accused is not entitled to anticipa

¶15In Sushila Agrawal and ot Another reported in (2020) 5 SC held that while considering an ap Court has to consider the nature likelihood of his influencing the co evidence or likelihood of fleeing j "92.4. Courts ought to be as the nature and gravity applicant, and the facts of grant anticipatory bail, or matter of discretion; equ special conditions are t dependent on facts of the court." As per the case put forth in allegations have been levelled f the FIR and the material availa se pertains to a misappropriation wherein the consignment was a on and subsequently routed bac ted commercial transactions. Th d, prima facie discloses a coordi including the petitioner in ord of the complainant and wrong

PC being an extraordinary remedy, re so, in cases of economic offenc fferent class as they affect the econo rate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kum ent v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2 S was held that in economic offences, atory bail." thers v. State (NCT of Delhi) a CC 1, Constitution Bench of this Co pplication for grant of pre-arrest bail of the offence, the role of the person, ourse of investigation, or tampering w ustice. The Court held:- generally guided by considerations s of the offences, the role attributed to f the case, while considering whether r refuse it. Whether to grant or not i ually whether and if so, what kind to be imposed (or not imposed) case, and subject to the discretion of n the FIR in question, indubitab against the petitioner. From able on record, it is evident that n of a substantial quantity of plas allegedly diverted from its origi ck into the supply chain throu he factual matrix, as emerging fro inated effort on the part of multi der to cause wrongful loss to gful gain to themselves. As rega

has ces. mic mar SCC ourt with uch r to is a d of are f the bly, stic nal ugh om ple role ascri Court, at participate a Store K colour of scrap dea rather wa misapprop the petiti disclosure records) w relevant ti

¶8collected the petitio petitioner at this sta common as reflecte petitioner collected prosecutio disclosure the offen effectively

ibed to the petitioner, the mate this stage, prima facie indicates ed in the commission of offence Keeper with the company of t f his office and facilitated the d aler. The allegation is that such as carried out in furtherance of priate the goods. The record furt ioner has surfaced during the e statement(s) of co-accused as which shows his communication ime. From a prima facie readin during investigation, it cannot b oner are wholly vague or devoi r was not named in the initial com age. The material collected so f intention and joint participation ed from the disclosure statemen r, though emerging at a subsequ during the course of investigatio on version. In the considered vie e statement(s) and the extent of t ce, are matter(s) requiring thor y undertaken only through custo

erial placed on record before t s that he is stated to have activ e. The petitioner, while working the complainant, has misused diversion of the consignment to h diversion was not accidental b a criminal conspiracy in order ther reflects that the involvement course of investigation throu well as through CDR (call det n with other accused persons at ng of the FIR and the mater be said that the allegations agai id of substance. The plea that mplaint does not inspire confiden far reflects prima facie evidence n of the petitioner and co-accus nt. The alleged involvement of uent stage, is supported by mater on which lends corroboration to ew of this Court, the veracity of the involvement of the petitioner rough investigation which can odial interrogation. The allegatio

this ely g as o a but r to t of ugh tail rial inst nce e of ed, rial r in be in the FI prima fac which the the consi petitioner the recov before th necessary ascertain transactio Court is n allegation Court, gr ongoing in

¶9remedy a Court is custodial possibility conspirac petitioner this nasce stage, fro implicated considerin

R and the material collected d cie disclose an offence of che e role of the present petitioner is idered opinion of this Court, r, at this stage, would hamper the very of material evidence. The his Court is that the custodial y to trace the money trail, rec the role of other co-accused on. At the stage of considering not to evaluate the evidence bu ns disclose a serious offence. ranting anticipatory bail at this nvestigation. It is a trite law that the ant nd is to be granted only in exc satisfied that the accused has interrogation is not required. Co y of involvement of multiple pe y, if any, behind the occurren r, it is not appropriate to grant a ent stage. No cause nay plausib m which it can be deciphered t d into the FIR in question. It is b ng a plea for grant of anticipator

during the course of investigati eating and criminal conspiracy s currently under investigation. granting anticipatory bail to e ongoing investigation and impe stand of the investigating agen interrogation of the petitioner cover the forged documents a d who may be involved in the plea for anticipatory bail, ut only to see whether prima fa In the considered opinion of t s stage may likely to hamper ticipatory bail is an extraordina ceptional circumstances where been falsely implicated and t onsidering the nature of allegatio ersons and to uncover the broad nce coupled with the role of anticipatory bail to the petitioner ble cause has been shown, at t that the petitioner has been fals befitting to mention here that wh ry bail, the Court has to equilibr

ion in In ede ncy r is acie this ary hat ons, der r at this ely hile between s Court oug attributed deeper an stage, the made out prelimina accusation petitioner investigat 1039, the

¶10attributed a fair and

safeguarding individual rights an ght to reckon with the magnitude d to the accused; the need for fai nd wide impact of such alleged ere is no material on record to against the petitioner. The mate ary investigation, appear to est ns. Thus, it is not appropriate r, 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 In view of the gravity of d to the petitioner as also the nece thorough investigation, this Cou

nd protecting societal interests. T e and 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 erial which has come on record a tablish a reasonable basis for 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." the allegations, the specific r essity of custodial interrogation urt is of the considered opinion t

The ole this not ive Cri) n is o is e. In s of also uch well e is e to ught ods y all ible nces role for the petitio factual mi

11.

(i)

(ii) of opinion

(iii)

April 23, Ajay

oner does not deserve the conc ilieu of the case in hand. 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

cession of anticipatory bail in 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

sed.