CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----24785 24785 24785 24785---- 146 146 146 146 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sandeep Kumar alias Kamal State of Haryana Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present: Present: Present: Present:- SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL 2023 seeking dated 14.07.2024 420, 506, 120 Police Station Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar. 2. complainant, introduced him to Kamal purportedly assured him that they could arrange for his daughter’s admission and study visa to Australia. Acting on their representations, the complainant paid various The accused allegedly provided forged admission and fee ----2026 2026 2026 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----24785 24785 24785 24785----2026 2026 2026 2026 Sandeep Kumar alias Kamal versus Haryana Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: May 29 May 29 May 29 May 29, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: May 29 May 29 May 29 May 29, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Priyanka Sadar Thakur, Senior DAG Haryana. ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner 14.07.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Section 420, 506, 120-B, 201 of IPC and Sections 10, 24 of the Immigration Act, at Police Station Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that complainant, namely, Harminder Singh, alleged that accus introduced him to Kamal (petitioner herein) purportedly assured him that they could arrange for his daughter’s admission and study visa to Australia. Acting on their representations, the complainant paid various amounts through bank transfers and cash, totaling The accused allegedly provided forged admission and fee 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2026 2026 2026 2026 ….Petitioner …Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL for the petitioner. Ms. Priyanka Sadar Thakur, Senior DAG Haryana. petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.257 ences punishable under Sections 406, B, 201 of IPC and Sections 10, 24 of the Immigration Act, at Police Station Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that the Harminder Singh, alleged that accused Vijay Pandey (petitioner herein) and co-accused – Komal, who purportedly assured him that they could arrange for his daughter’s admission and study visa to Australia. Acting on their representations, the complainant amounts through bank transfers and cash, totaling ₹14,62,000/-. The accused allegedly provided forged admission and fee-payment documents 1111 ….Petitioner …Respondent of the BNSS, 257 406, B, 201 of IPC and Sections 10, 24 of the Immigration Act, at the ed Vijay Pandey Komal, who purportedly assured him that they could arrange for his daughter’s admission and study visa to Australia. Acting on their representations, the complainant . payment documents MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.05.29 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 2222 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----24785 24785 24785 24785----2026 2026 2026 2026 of CQ University, Australia, and continued demanding further money on different pretexts. Subsequently, the complainant discovered that no genuine arrangements had been made and that the accused had allegedly cheated several other persons in a similar manner. When he sought a refund, the accused allegedly refused to return the money and threatened him with dire consequences. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was arrested on 12.01.2026. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question since the FIR-complainant/ victim was not able to send her daughter abroad to enable her to pursue her studies. Learned counsel has further submitted that challan, upon culmination of investigation, already stands presented and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner into custody. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner is a man aged 26 years and is the sole bread-earner of his family. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 27.05.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case. Before delving into the matter further, it would be germane to refer herein the case law governing the issue in hand: MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.05.29 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 3333 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----24785 24785 24785 24785----2026 2026 2026 2026 5.1 Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others vs. Public Prosecutor, Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others vs. Public Prosecutor, Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others vs. Public Prosecutor, Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 429, 429, 429, 429, relevant whereof reads as under: “10. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to the goals of community good and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed, the considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom- by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of justice-to the individual involved and society affected. 11. We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence, of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be close to ours, the function of bail is limited, 'community roots' of the, applicant are stressed and, after the Vera Foundation's Manhattan Bail Project, monetary suretyship is losing ground. The considerable public expense in keeping in custody where no danger of disappearance or disturbance can arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the deplorable condition, verging on. the inhuman, of our sub-jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable and a Policy favouring release justly sensible. 12. A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All deprivation of liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction along an anti-criminal direction. Public justice is central to the whole scheme of bail law. Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness should be minimised. Restorative devices to redeem the man, even, through community service, meditative drill, study classes or other resources should be innovated, and playing foul with public peace by tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses or committing offence while on judicially sanctioned 'free enterprise,' should be provided against. No seeker of justice shall play confidence tricks on the court or community. Thus, conditions may be hung around bail orders, not to cripple but to protect. Such is the holistic jurisdiction and humanistic orientation invoked by the judicial discretion correlated to the values of our constitution.” 5.2. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as Gurcharan Singh vs. State (UT of Delhi) 1978 (1) SCC 118, Gurcharan Singh vs. State (UT of Delhi) 1978 (1) SCC 118, Gurcharan Singh vs. State (UT of Delhi) 1978 (1) SCC 118, Gurcharan Singh vs. State (UT of Delhi) 1978 (1) SCC 118, has held as under: “Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court, court, court, court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.05.29 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 4444 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----24785 24785 24785 24785----2026 2026 2026 2026 and circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, court, court, court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond would effect that end.” 5.3 Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment tiled as Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (20 Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (20 Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (20 Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, 12) 1 SCC 40, 12) 1 SCC 40, 12) 1 SCC 40, has held as under: “21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un- convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.” 6. The petitioner was arrested on 12.01.2026, whereinafter, investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 07.03.2026. Total 15 prosecution witnesses have been cited, and it is not in dispute that none has been examined till date. It is, thus, indubitable that conclusion of the trial will take long. It is also not in dispute that the trial emanating from the FIR in question is magisterial in nature. The rival contention raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall essentially be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.05.29 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 5555 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----24785 24785 24785 24785----2026 2026 2026 2026 been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1. As per custody certificate dated 27.05.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 04 months and 16 days. 6.2. Further, as per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in other FIR(s). However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, U.P. and another, U.P. and another, U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 477 477 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Akhilesh Akhilesh Akhilesh Singh v. State of H Singh v. State of H Singh v. State of H Singh v. State of Haryana aryana aryana aryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Balraj v. State of Balraj v. State of Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed allowed allowed allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.05.29 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 6666 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----24785 24785 24785 24785----2026 2026 2026 2026 (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. Ordered accordingly. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. ((((SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)))) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE May 29 May 29 May 29 May 29, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.05.29 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment