IN THE 208 Rahul Kumar Jha State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE Present :- Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ The Bharatiya Nagarik petitioner in case Sections 408, 420, Police Station Udyog 2. Learned that the case of the the purchase orders/invoices, of different vendors. have been transferred which a sum of the account of the the confession/alleged receipt of the amount and handed over THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19989 Date of decision: Jha VERSUS Haryana HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD . Ketan Antil, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paras Talwar, Sr. DAG, Haryana Mr. Sidhartha Barua, Mr. Arora Vishwas Mr. Kumar Arnav Singh Rao and . Naman, Advocates for the complainant. ***** BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) The instant first petition has been filed Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for case bearing FIR No.305 dated 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Udyog Vihar, District Gurugram. Learned counsel appearing on behalf the prosecution is that on the strength orders/invoices, various amounts were vendors. A sum of Rs.99,00,000/- approximately transferred to the account of the firm Rs.4,00,000/- has already been deposited the complainant. It is submitted that confession/alleged disclosure of the petitioner amount from the complainant-Company, over to the main kingpin Vineet Jha, PUNJAB & HARYANA CHANDIGARH 19989-2026(O&M) decision: 18.05.2026 ...Petitioner ...Respondent VINOD S. BHARDWAJ petitioner. Haryana. Vishwas Kumar, complainant. filed under Section 483 of the grant of regular bail to the 20.12.2024 registered under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at behalf of the petitioner contends strength of forged documents viz. were transferred to the accounts approximately was alleged to firm of the petitioner herein of deposited by the petitioner in that the entire case is based upon petitioner wherein he has stated that on Company, the same was withdrawn who used to give commission SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.18 19:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 208 CRM-M-19989-2026(O&M) to the different vendors for having received the amount in their accounts. He submits that apart from the aforesaid allegation, the only recovery that had been effected is certain forged invoices. He further submits that even as per the case of the prosecution, the said invoices have not been forged by the petitioner and that he was in possession of the same for and on behalf of the main accused Vineet Jha. It is contended that the case of the petitioner is at par with the co- accused Harsh Singh and Chandra Vardhan Jain to whom concession of regular bail has already been granted vide common order dated 09.03.2026 passed in CRM-M-340-2026 and CRM-M-5374-2026 respectively. It is further contended that the petitioner is in custody since 08.09.2025 and the investigation qua the petitioner already stands concluded. Charge has so far not been framed and there are total of 26 witnesses cited by the prosecution out of which none has been examined so far. He further contends that the offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate and that he has no other criminal antecedents. 4. Learned State Counsel does not dispute that the case of the petitioner would be at par with co-accused Harsh Singh and Chandra Vardhan Jain to whom concession of regular bail has already been extended and admits that the petitioner had not forged the said documents but was in possession of the forged invoices on behalf of the main accused Vineet Jha. The stage of the trial, the clean antecedents as well as the claim of parity is not disputed. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant however contends that the petitioner had formed different companies and had received amounts into his accounts and that had it not been for the active involvement of the petitioner in assisting the main accused in siphoning off the funds of the complainant- Company, the fraud could not have been fructified at the first instance. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.18 19:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 208 CRM-M-19989-2026(O&M) 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended along with the present petition. 7. Taking into consideration that the respondent-State does not dispute that the case of the petitioner would be at par with co-accused Harsh Singh and Chandra Vardhan Jain to whom concession of regular bail has already been granted vide common order dated 09.03.2026 passed in CRM-M- 340-2026 and CRM-M-5374-2026 respectively, the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner i.e. nearly 08 months, his clean antecedents, the stage of trial, where charge has not been framed so far and 26 witnesses are to be examined as well as the fact that offences in question are triable by the Court of Magistrate, I deem it appropriate to allow the present petition. 8. The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. 9. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly. 10. The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 18.05.2026 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Sumit Gusain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.18 19:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document