CRM-M-68609- IN THE H (120) GURPREET SIN STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. S MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul registered under S Nagar (Mohali). 2. The a complaint submitt 2016, he booked a 115, Greater Moha and he had paid petitioner, who wa -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH T SINGH SIDHU Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS r. Sonpreet S. Brar, Advocate for th Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab **** BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been prefe of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh regular bail in case arising out of F nder Sections 406 and 420 of IPC a The aforementioned FIR was registe ubmitted by the complainant Jagdeep oked an apartment in a society named r Mohali. The sale consideration amou paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- as b ho was representing the above-named JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-68609-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.03.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA for the petitioner preferred by the petitioner under a Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) ut of FIR No.113 dated 22.07.2020 IPC at Police Station Kharar, SAS registered on the basis of a written gdeep Singh alleging that in the year amed as Emerging Heights-3, Sector amount was fixed to be Rs.31 lakhs as booking amount. The present named company/society got his loan M) 2026 oner dent nder SS”) 2020 SAS ritten year ector lakhs esent loan AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.25 19:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-68609- sanctioned from I purchase of flat consideration wou lakhs was deducte and an amount o apartment. In this to the company/so was given to him had cheated him, t 3. After The petitioner was 4. It is a falsely implicated for investigation p involvement in ot benefit of bail to h in favour of the co not been in contac him in custody any on bail. 5. Per c against the petition cheated several o -2025 (O&M) 2 from India Bulls Bank, Chandigarh flat and had told him that the re n would be adjusted from the loan am educted by the petitioner from the loa unt of Rs.6,20,000/- was taken as 2 In this manner, the complainant depo /society. However, neither the po o him nor his money was returned. B him, the complainant prayed for takin After registration of FIR, investigatio er was arrested on 24.04.2025. Investi It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case. He is in custody s ation purposes. Trial will take consid t in other cases cannot be considere ail to him. He has prepared a demand the complainant and is ready to pay t contact with him. No useful purpose dy anymore. It is, therefore, stressed Per contra, learned State counsel ha petitioner are serious in nature. He is eral other persons and as many as 0 igarh Branch in his name, for the the remaining amount of the sale oan amount. The said sum of Rs.17 the loan account of the complainant n as 20% of the total price of the t deposited a sum of Rs.23,70,000/- the possession of the said apartment ned. By alleging that the petitioner r taking action against him. stigation proceedings were initiated. Investigation now stands concluded. l for the petitioner that he has been stody since long. He is not required considerable time to conclude. His sidered to be a reason for denying emand draft for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs pay the same to him, though he has rpose would be served by detaining essed that he deserves to be released nsel has argued that the allegations He is a habitual offender, as he had y as 09 cases have been registered r the sale s.17 inant f the - ment ioner ated. been uired His ying lakhs e has ining ased tions d tered AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.25 19:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-68609- against him. He h as such has been b are chances of his that the petition do 6. This C for the parties at co 7. The p Rs.23,70,000/- on neither the posses has been returned. of the subject off custody since 24.0 cannot be kept in law is that bail is t not be replica of p appearance of the Taking into cons without meaning t prejudice the trial ordered to be rele bonds to the ext Court/Chief Judic to the condition th -2025 (O&M) 3 . He had even absconded and was dec been booked under Section 174A of IP of his absconding, if extended benefit tion does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. The petitioner is alleged to have dupe on the pretext of allotting/selling possession of the plot was given to th urned. The allegations prima facie m ect offences against the petitioner. H ce 24.04.2025. The subject offences ept in custody for indefinite period. ail is the rule and jail is an exception. ca of post-conviction sentencing. The of the accused during trial, and it can consideration the above discussed ning to make any comments on the m e trial in any manner, the petition is be released on bail, subject to his fu e extent of 02 sureties to the sati Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate that the amount of Rs.4 lakhs whi as declared a proclaimed person and A of IPC also in another case. There enefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued ubmissions made by learned counsel e duped the complainant of a sum of elling a flat in his favour, however, n to the complainant nor his money make out a case for commission ner. However, he has remained in ences are triable by Magistrate. He iod. The well settled proposition of ption. Pre-trial incarceration should . The object of the jail is to secure it cannot be preventive or punitive. ussed facts and circumstances but the merits of the case lest the same tion is allowed and the petitioner is his furnishing personal and surety e satisfaction of the learned trial strate concerned and further subject which has been shown as Demand and here gued unsel m of ever, oney ssion d in . He of ould cure itive. but same er is urety trial bject and AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.25 19:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-68609- Draft got issued i learned Trial Cou The Trial Court s get the aforementi 8. In the petitioner, it shall application seekin 9. Since any, is rendered in 25.03.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 4 sued in the name of the complainant al Court/Jurisdictional Magistrate at t ourt shall give notice to the complain mentioned amount released in his favo In the event of there being any FIR t shall be open to the respondent-State seeking cancellation of bail. Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes Whether reportable:- Yes/No ainant today, is deposited before the te at the time of furnishing bonds. mplainant who shall be at liberty to is favour. y FIR/complaint lodged against the State to seek redressal by filing an allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No e the nds. ty to t the g an n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.25 19:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.