Authority: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Order Date: 17 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – Samar Mohan Ranga; Respondent – State of Haryana.
  • FIR Details: FIR No. 05 dated 24‑03‑2026 registered at State Vigilance and Anti‑Corruption Bureau, Panchkula, under Sections 13(1)(a) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and various sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
  • Allegations: Financial irregularities involving Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) of Municipal Corporation, Panchkula held with Kotak Mahindra Bank (Sector‑11). Sixteen FDRs amounting to more than Rs 145 crore with a maturity value exceeding Rs 158 crore were recorded. Discrepancies were found between municipal records and bank statements, indicating large‑scale misappropriation of public funds.
  • Investigative Findings:
  • Eleven FDRs had matured but the amounts reflected in bank statements did not match the expected maturity values.
  • Funds were allegedly siphoned through a series of layered transactions involving the petitioner, his wife Neha Samar Ranga, and co‑accused such as Pushpinder Singh, Swati Tomar, Rajat Dahra, Kapil Kumar, and entities like Sanat Enterprises and SK Agro Tech.
  • A key table of diverted funds (in Rs.) shows:

| Sr. | Funds diverted to | Debit Amount (Rs.) | Net Amount (Rs.) |

| 1 | Sanat Enterprises | 6,974,700,230.10 | 667,350,230.10 |

| 2 | Swati Tomar | 132,196,639.70 | 126,258,018.70 |

| 3 | Pushpinder Singh | 294,619,507.24 | 83,312,507.24 |

| 4 | Samar Mohan Ranga | 5,190,000.00 | 5,190,000.00 |

| 5 | Aryan Singh | 35,00,000.00 | 14,100,000.00 |

| Total | 1,211,416,377.04 | 942,920,756.04 |

  • Additional transfers to the petitioner’s joint account (Union Bank of India) from various accused between 12‑12‑2023 and 29‑11‑2023 amounted to Rs 5.19 crore (five crores and nineteen lacs).
  • Arrests: Nine accused—including Dalip Raghav, Rajat Dahra, Kapil, Vikash Kaushik, Swati Tomar, Pushpinder Singh, Sonia, Priyanka Raijada, and Neha Samar Ranga—were taken into judicial custody on dates ranging from 25‑03‑2026 to 07‑04‑2026.
  • Petitioner’s Contentions: Asserted false implication, no employment with Kotak Mahindra Bank or Municipal Corporation, no criminal antecedents, and willingness to comply with any conditions if bail were granted.
  • State’s Position: Emphasised the seriousness of the alleged economic offence, the necessity of custodial interrogation to prevent tampering of evidence, and the risk that bail would impede the investigation.
  • Judicial Reasoning: Cited Supreme Court precedents on anticipatory bail in serious corruption cases, highlighting that bail is an extraordinary relief and must not obstruct the investigation or public interest.

Final Outcome

  • The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed as “devoid of merits”.
  • All pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
  • The petitioner remains in custody pending further investigation and trial.

Topics: Anticipatory Bail, Corruption