CRM-M-21697- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (225) TARUN KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana Mr. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for the complainant MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. The instant 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. under Sections 316(2) “BNS”) at Police Station Panjokhara, District Ambala. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the victim Tarun Chahar, alleging therein that he was a specially-abled person working in the Electricity Department. He was introduced with the petitioner by one of his friends and they were on talking terms. In July, 2025, the petitioner came to his house and represented to the co Shandilya was competent to issue subsidized loan amount in favour of 5 -2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TARUN KUMAR Versus HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Nitin Sansanwal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana Mr. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for the complainant **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.182 dated 15.10.2025 registered under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short at Police Station Panjokhara, District Ambala. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the victim Tarun Chahar, alleging therein that he was a abled person, suffering from 90% permanent disability. He was working in the Electricity Department. He was introduced with the petitioner by one of his friends and they were on talking terms. In July, 2025, the petitioner came to his house and represented to the complainant that his Shandilya was competent to issue subsidized loan amount in favour of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-21697-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.07.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for the complainant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant 182 dated 15.10.2025 registered Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short at Police Station Panjokhara, District Ambala. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the victim Tarun Chahar, alleging therein that he was a suffering from 90% permanent disability. He was working in the Electricity Department. He was introduced with the petitioner by one of his friends and they were on talking terms. In July, 2025, the petitioner mplainant that his Manager Mukesh Shandilya was competent to issue subsidized loan amount in favour of 5-6 2026 petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section for grant 182 dated 15.10.2025 registered Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the victim Tarun Chahar, alleging therein that he was a suffering from 90% permanent disability. He was working in the Electricity Department. He was introduced with the petitioner by one of his friends and they were on talking terms. In July, 2025, the petitioner Mukesh 6 AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-21697- persons jointly and loan upto Rs.10 lakhs could be made available, on reasonable rate of interest to him. He told the complainant to spend an amount of Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of availing such loan facility. He induced him by saying that he would get loan amount sanctioned in his favour and on being so allured, the complainant alongwith 06 more persons Manisha Kumari, Vi Rani jointly gave money to the petitioner for sanctioning of loan. An amount of Rs.1,80,000/- was given to the petitioner, however, no loan amount was got sanctioned. On asking the reason, the petition extended threats that he would commit suicide. By alleging that he alongwith others had been duped at the hands of the petitioner, he prayed for taking action in the matter. 3. After registration of FIR, investigation proce The petitioner was arrested on 18.02.2026. He was interrogated and he suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime. He got recovered a sum of Rs.1800. Investigation now stands concluded. 4. It is argued b falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery has been planted upon him. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. He is in custody since long. His continued detention would not serve any considerable time to conclude. It is, thus, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. -2026 (O&M) 2 persons jointly and loan upto Rs.10 lakhs could be made available, on reasonable rate of interest to him. He told the complainant to spend an amount for the purpose of availing such loan facility. He induced him by saying that he would get loan amount sanctioned in his favour and on being so the complainant alongwith 06 more persons Manisha Kumari, Vinod Kumar, Priya Sharma, Amandeep Singh and Sangeeta jointly gave money to the petitioner for sanctioning of loan. An amount of was given to the petitioner, however, no loan amount was got sanctioned. On asking the reason, the petition extended threats that he would commit suicide. By alleging that he alongwith others had been duped at the hands of the petitioner, he prayed for taking action After registration of FIR, investigation proce The petitioner was arrested on 18.02.2026. He was interrogated and he suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime. He got recovered a sum of Rs.1800. Investigation now stands concluded. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery has been planted upon him. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. He is in custody since long. His continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. It is, thus, argued that the petition deserves to be persons jointly and loan upto Rs.10 lakhs could be made available, on reasonable rate of interest to him. He told the complainant to spend an amount for the purpose of availing such loan facility. He induced him by saying that he would get loan amount sanctioned in his favour and on being so the complainant alongwith 06 more persons, namely Anuradha Kaplesh, nod Kumar, Priya Sharma, Amandeep Singh and Sangeeta jointly gave money to the petitioner for sanctioning of loan. An amount of was given to the petitioner, however, no loan amount was got sanctioned. On asking the reason, the petitioner started making excuses, and extended threats that he would commit suicide. By alleging that he alongwith others had been duped at the hands of the petitioner, he prayed for taking action After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 18.02.2026. He was interrogated and he suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime. He got recovered a sum of Rs.1800. Investigation now stands concluded. y learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery has been planted upon him. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. He is in custody since long. His useful purpose. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. It is, thus, argued that the petition deserves to be persons jointly and loan upto Rs.10 lakhs could be made available, on reasonable rate of interest to him. He told the complainant to spend an amount for the purpose of availing such loan facility. He induced him by saying that he would get loan amount sanctioned in his favour and on being so namely Anuradha Kaplesh, nod Kumar, Priya Sharma, Amandeep Singh and Sangeeta jointly gave money to the petitioner for sanctioning of loan. An amount of was given to the petitioner, however, no loan amount was got er started making excuses, and extended threats that he would commit suicide. By alleging that he alongwith others had been duped at the hands of the petitioner, he prayed for taking action edings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 18.02.2026. He was interrogated and he suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime. He got recovered a y learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery has been planted upon him. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. He is in custody since long. His useful purpose. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. It is, thus, argued that the petition deserves to be AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-21697- 5. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the petition providing loan from Khadi Grami 6 other persons by extracting a sum of Rs.1,80,000/ cause wrongful loss of money to them and to cheat and defraud them chances of his committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 7. The allegations as levelled against the petitioner out a case for commission of cheating against him. However, he is in custody since 18.02.2026. His continued detention is not required as the investigation stands completed and tria incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. and jail is an exception. Pre conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. consideration the above discussed facts made out for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. -2026 (O&M) 3 Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the petition providing loan from Khadi Gramin Laghu Udhyog 6 other persons by extracting a sum of Rs.1,80,000/ cause wrongful loss of money to them and to cheat and defraud them nces of his committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. The allegations as levelled against the petitioner out a case for commission of cheating against him. However, he is in custody .02.2026. His continued detention is not required as the investigation stands completed and trial will take considerable incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. The well settled proposition and jail is an exception. Pre-trial incarceration should not be replica of post conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of th made out for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the petitioner on the pretext of yog, cheated the complainant and 6 other persons by extracting a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- from them with intent to cause wrongful loss of money to them and to cheat and defraud them. There are nces of his committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel The allegations as levelled against the petitioner prima facie make out a case for commission of cheating against him. However, he is in custody .02.2026. His continued detention is not required as the investigation ble time to conclude. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. The subject offences are proposition of law is that bail is the rule carceration should not be replica of post- conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. Taking into , this Court is of the opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the er on the pretext of cheated the complainant and from them with intent to . There are nces of his committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel make out a case for commission of cheating against him. However, he is in custody .02.2026. His continued detention is not required as the investigation time to conclude. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. The subject offences are of law is that bail is the rule - conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the Taking into e opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his the learned trial AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-21697- 8. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the 9. Since the main petition has been any, is rendered infructuous. 10.07.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 4 It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been allowed any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing , pending application, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.