CRM-M-51149-2025 (O & M) ::1:: (228) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-51149-2025 (O & M) Date of Decision: 17.09.2025 Irshad ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Munfaid Khan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. T.P. Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. The prayer in this petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.17 dated 22.06.2025 under Section 7, 7A, 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Faridabad, District Faridabad. 2. The allegations against the petitioner are that he sought an illegal gratification of Rs.1,00,000/- so as to not demolish the office and residence of the complainant. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Musfeed, the Duty Magistrate who introduced the complainant with the petitioner has been declared innocent during the investigation. The petitioner is a contractual driver for the Duty Magistrate and everything was done on the directions of the said SUKHPREET KAUR 2025.09.17 06:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-51149-2025 (O & M) ::2:: Duty Magistrate. Therefore, once the main accused stands exonerated, the question of the culpability of the petitioner does not arise. Even otherwise, he is in custody since 22.06.2025 and as none of the 22 prosecution witnesses has been examined, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail. 4. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner demanded Rs.1,00,000/- so as to not demolish the office and residence of the complainant. The conversation has been recorded. The nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner do not entitle him to the concession of bail. He, however, concedes that the petitioner is in custody since 22.06.2025 and none of the 22 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The veracity of the prosecution case against the petitioner shall be adjudicated upon during the course of the Trial. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody since 22.06.2025 but none of the 22 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, therefore, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. In this situation, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required. 7. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner, namely, Irshad is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned. 8. The petition stands disposed of. SUKHPREET KAUR 2025.09.17 06:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-51149-2025 (O & M) ::3:: 9. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE September 17, 2025 sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No SUKHPREET KAUR 2025.09.17 06:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh