Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects Second Anticipatory Bail Plea; Finds No Change in Circumstances and Notes Evasion of Investigation
Case Name: B. Rajiv Sinha vs. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: 13 November 2025
Citation: CRM-M-63571-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the second petition seeking anticipatory bail, holding that no substantial change in circumstances had been shown since dismissal of the earlier petition. The Court observed that the petitioner had been granted interim protection during the first bail attempt but failed to join investigation despite repeated directions. The Court held that prolonged evasion, non-cooperation with the investigating agency, and repetition of similar arguments disentitled the petitioner to relief. It reiterated that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, and its exercise requires bona fide conduct, particularly in financial fraud allegations under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.
Summary: The FIR was registered after the complainant alleged that under a promissory note dated 01.12.2020, he invested ₹20,00,000/- with the petitioner’s company for establishing a mushroom cultivation unit. It was alleged that the petitioner assured monthly returns and project completion within agreed timelines but only delivered partial work and stopped communication after making a few payments. The complaint further alleged fraudulent inducement and misappropriation of funds. The petitioner argued that the dispute was contractual and civil in nature, that arbitration clause existed in the agreement, and that non-completion was due to misunderstanding and not criminal intent. It was further contended that despite earlier dismissal of bail due to non-appearance, the petitioner was now willing to cooperate. The State and complainant opposed the plea, arguing that the petitioner’s conduct demonstrated deliberate avoidance of investigation, misuse of prior interim protection, and ongoing attempts to frustrate the process.
Decision: The Court held that the petitioner had failed to establish any fresh developments or material change in circumstances justifying a second anticipatory bail petition. It noted that more than three and a half years had passed since dismissal of the first petition and the petitioner had deliberately evaded the legal process during this period. The Court held that the allegations prima facie disclosed dishonest intention from inception, and custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the money trail and involvement of other individuals. The petition was accordingly dismissed, with a clarification that observations were confined to the bail proceedings and would not prejudice the trial. All pending applications were disposed of.