CRM-M- IN 231 Sanket Mit v. Central GS CORAM: Present: AARADHN 1. Association 2. been filed COMA/518 Superinten another,” short “the C 3. mobile pho on the GST availed ITC had passed -44925-2025 -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGA et Mittal ral GST Department AM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AA Mr. Dheeraj Mittal, father of Mr. Sanket Mittal, petitioner None for the respondent. **** ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) Upon a call given by Punja ciation, the Members of the Bar are ab This petition for grant of bail filed by petitioner, an accused 518/2025 dated 5.7.2025, titled intendent, CGST Commissionerat ” under Section 132 of Central G “the CGST Act”). M/s Balaji Mobile Addition h le phones (especially I-phones). On e GST Portal, it came to notice that ed ITC from various suppliers includ passed on ineligible ITC to the tune o 1- PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH CRM-M-44925-2025 Date of Decision: 18.12.2025 …Petitioner. …Respondent. CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. er of Punjab and Haryana High Court B are abstaining from work. f bail under Section 483 of BNSS, ha ccused in criminal complaint N titled “Mr. Vikas Kumar Verm nerate v. Sh. Sanket Mittal an ntral Goods Service Tax Act, 2017 ( ition has been engaged in the trading o On perusal of GST returns availab e that M/s Balaji Mobile Addition ha including M/s Monit Enterprises, wh tune of Rs.30.4 crores to it during th .2025 urt Bar SS, has t No. erma, l and 017 (in ading of vailable tion had es, who g the HAMANT 2025.12.20 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- period De Accordingl by order d w.e.f. 29.2 application dated 30.4 holding th Rs.30,54,15 preferred b order dated registration proceeded CGST Ru Rs.30,54,15 Addition fi (Annexure the account pending tri availment a of M/s Ba respondent Faridabad 8.5.2025, w has been in Court after pending be -44925-2025 -2 d December, 2023 to March, 20 rdingly, a show cause notice dated 19 rder dated 26.3.2024 (Annexure P- . 29.2.2024 were issued. Against cation for revocation of order was fil 30.4.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed ing that the tax payer firm has 0,54,15,229/- from one M/s Monit E rred by petitioner against the order r dated 8.5.2024 (Annexure P-5) by r tration of the aforesaid firm was rest eeded to freeze the ITC ledger of the f T Rules against the alleged I 0,54,15,229/-. Against the action of th tion filed CWP-1835802924. This exure P-6) issued an interim order di ccount as well as the electronic credit trial adjudication. On the basis ment and passing of ITC, petitioner, w /s Balaji Mobile Addition was arre ndent moved an application before le abad seeking permission to record 025, which was allowed. Petitioner, een in custody since then. Complain t after completion of necessary inv ing before the Court. 2- h, 2024 using goods-less invoice ted 19.3.2024 (Annexure P-2) followe -3) for cancellation of registratio gainst the order (Annexure P-3), a as filed which was rejected vide ord assed by the Assistant Commission has availed ITC to the tune o onit Enterprises. The statutory appe (Annexure P-4) was allowed vid ) by revoking the cancellation and th as restored. Thereafter, the responde f the firm by invoking Rule 86A of th ed ITC availment amounting n of the respondent, M/s Balaji Mobi This Court vide order date 24.9.202 rder directing the respondent to releas credit ledger. The said writ petition basis of said allegations of fraudule , who looks after business activitie as arrested, on 6.5.2025. Thereafte fore learned Chief Judicial Magistrat record the statement of petitioner o ioner, who was arrested on 06.05.202 plaint was filed before the compete ry investigation/enquiry, the same nvoices. ollowed istration , an de order issioner tune of appeal ed vide and the pondent A of the ting to Mobile .9.2024 release tition is udulent ctivities ereafter, gistrate, oner on 05.2025 mpetent same is HAMANT 2025.12.20 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 4. learned Chi terms of o petitioner m Judge, Fari 25.7.2025 ( filed. 5. petitioner h issued a sh registration cancellation which was before the revoked. R Balaji Mob M/s Monit this Court ordered for purchases business an Act. Furth the regular Enterprises and petitio Enterprises -44925-2025 -3 Petitioner moved an applicatio ed Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridaba s of order dated 13.5.2025. Agai ioner moved an application before e, Faridabad, which also came to be d 2025 (Annexure P-4). Aggrieved of th Shri Dheeraj Mittal, father ioner has been falsely implicated in d a show cause notice dated 19.3.20 tration of M/s Balaji Mobile Add ellation order dated 26.3.2024. Petiti h was dismissed on 30.4.2024 and th re the appellate authority, which was ked. Respondent also proceeded to fre ji Mobile Addition for ITC availmen Monit Enterprises. The said action of Court in CWP-18358-2024 and this C red for de-freezing of ITC ledger. It hases from M/s Monit Enterprises w ess and in compliance with the provi Further, M/s Balaji Phone Addition egular course of business from 187 rprises and all such purchases were du petitioner made the payment to its rprises through banking channel. 3- lication for grant of regular bail befo ridabad, which came to be dismissed Against the order dated 13.5.202 efore the learned Additional Session to be dismissed in terms of order date d of the same, present petition has bee father of the petitioner submits th ted in the present case. The responde 19.3.2024 for the cancellation of GS e Addition which was followed b Petitioner filed revocation applicatio and thereafter, filed a statutory appe was allowed and the cancellation wa d to freeze the ITC credit ledger of M ailment amounting to Rs.30 crores qu ion of respondent was challenged befo this Court vide order dated 24.9.202 r. It has been further submitted that a rises were made in normal course o provisions of Section 16 of the CGS dition had purchased mobile phones m 187 suppliers including M/s Mon ere duly reflected in the ledger accou to its supplier including M/s Mon l before issed in .5.2025, essions er dated as been its that pondent of GST wed by lication appeal ion was r of M/s res qua d before .9.2024 that all urse of e CGST ones in s Monit account Monit HAMANT 2025.12.20 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- has been m incarceratio record:- 6. respondent entire netw Tax Credit crores to th proceeding threat, coer -44925-2025 -4 Lastly, prayer for taking a len been made by extending him the co ceration would not serve any useful pu Following judgments have al (i) Ganga Ram Vs. State of this Court. (ii) Ratnambar Kaushik Centax 278 (SC) of Hon’ble S (iii) Vishal Chauhan Vs. H Unit), Rohtak, ((2024) 21 Cen High Court. (iv) Ashutosh Garg Vs. Un 595 (SC)). (v) Sandeep Singhal Vs. D of Rajasthan High Court. (vi) Manish Kumar Vs. D Services Tax Intelligence TIOL-1233-HC-P&H-GST) (vii) Manoj Gupta Vs. U CRM-M No.20320 of 202 10.07.2025. While opposing the petition, d ndent-department reiterating that pet e network i.e. for the generating fake i Credit without actual supply of goods s to the State Exchequer. It was alleg eedings were conducted in accordance t, coercion or intimidation against th 4- g a lenient view in favour of petition the concession of bail, for his furth eful purpose. ave also been tendered and placed o State of Punjab, (2021 (44) GSTL 5 shik Vs. Union of India, (2022) n’ble Supreme Court. Vs. Haryana State GST (Intelligence 21 Centax 434) of Punjab and Haryan s. Union of India, ((2024) 20 Centax Vs. DGGSTI, ((2024) 16 Centax 443 Vs. Directorate General, Goods an ence Zonal unit, Ludhiana, (2025 GST). Vs. Union of India and others, i f 2025 of this Court, decided o tion, detailed reply has been filed by th at petitioner is the mastermind of th fake invoices, passing fraudulent Inp goods causing huge loss of over Rs. s alleged in the reply that entire searc dance with law, thus no question of an inst the petitioner arises and petition etitioner further aced on STL 5) 022) 1 ligence aryana entax ax 443) ds and (2025- ers, in ded on d by the of the nt Input er Rs.30 e search n of any etitioner HAMANT 2025.12.20 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- himself vol firms, purc fraudulent bogus taxp during the concerned p Supreme C that petitio occurred/cr sought for i in same off Court and prayed for. 7. also gone th -44925-2025 -5 voluntarily admitted regarding thei , purchasing their credentials, issu ulent ITC. Further investigation revea s taxpayer firm were found to be non g the course of investigations, s erned persons, have also been referred Reference has been made to eme Court, as also that of the other Hi petitioner, at whose instance these tra rred/created does not deserve the con ht for is extended, there is every likelih me offence, fleeing from the process t and to tamper with the evidence. D d for. Reliance has been placed on th 1) SFIO Vs. Nitin Johar No.1381/2019 dated 1 Court. 2) Narain Popli Vs. CB Hon’ble Supreme Court 3) P.V. Ramana Reddy Petition No.4764 of 201 4) Shailesh Rajpal Vs. Co G.S.T.L. 336) of Madhy I have heard Mr. Dheeraj Mit gone through the material available on 5- ng their role in operating various bogu , issuing fake invoices and passin n reveals that all the major suppliers o be non-existent. The evidence collecte ns, statements recorded of variou ferred to in the reply. ade to various judgments of Hon’b ther High Courts, in support of its stan ese transactions of goods-less invoice he concession of bail, for if the reli likelihood of him (petitioner) indulgin ocess of justice by not appearing in th nce. Dismissal of the petition has bee d on the following judgments:- Johari and another, in Crl. Appe ted 12.09.2019 of Hon’ble Suprem s. CBI, (AIR 2003 SCC 3257) Court. eddy Vs. Union of India in Wr of 2019 of Telangana High Court. Vs. Commissioner, (2020 (32) Madhya Pradesh High Court. raj Mittal, father of petitioner and hav ble on record. s bogus passing pliers of ollected various Hon’ble stand invoices e relief dulging g in the as been Appeal upreme of n Writ have HAMANT 2025.12.20 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 8. contentions CGST Act, -44925-2025 -6 Before expressing any opin ntions, it would be appropriate to c T Act, which reads as under: - “132. Punishment for certain (1) Whoever commits an namely:— (a) supplies any goods or any invoice, in violation of t rules made thereunder, with th (b) issues any invoice or services or both in violation o rules made thereunder lead utilisation of input tax credit o (c) avails input tax credit u to in clause (b); shall be punishable–– (i) in cases where amount of input tax cre the amount of refund wr lakh rupees, with impr extend to five year and w (ii) in cases where t amount of input tax cre the amount of refun hundred lakh rupees b lakh rupees, with impr extend to three years an (iii) in the case of any of tax evaded or the am availed or utilised or th exceeds one hundred lak hundred lakh rupees, wi may extend to one year 6- opinion on the merits of the riv e to carefully go through Section 13 rtain offences.— any of the following offence or services or both without issue of the provisions of this Act or th ith the intention to evade tax; or bill without supply of goods o on of the provisions of this Act, or th leading to wrongful availment o dit or refund of tax; dit using such invoice or bill referre re the amount of tax evaded or th credit wrongly availed or utilized o d wrongly taken exceeds five hundre imprisonment for a term which ma and with fine. re the amount of tax evaded or th credit wrongly availed or utilized o efund wrongly taken exceeds tw es but does not exceed five hundre imprisonment for a term which ma s and with fine; f any other offence where the amou e amount of input tax credit wrong r the amount of refund wrongly take d lakh rupees but does not exceed tw s, with imprisonment for a term whic ear and with fine;” he rival ion 132 ences, sue of or the ds or or the nt or ferred or the zed or ndred h may or the zed or s two ndred h may mount rongly taken ed two which HAMANT 2025.12.20 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- the offence with impri meaning th State’s fina arises is as while deali At this stag Hon’ble Su Appeal No wherein wh bail arising -44925-2025 -7 A bare perusal of the aforesai ffences alleged to have been committe imprisonment for a term which ma ing thereby that the maximum terms o Economic offences by their ’s financial stability and deserve to be is as to what criteria/factors/circum e dealing with the petition for grant o is stage, it would be most appropria ble Supreme Court in “Vineet Jain l No.2269 of 2025 (arising out o ein while discussing the current state rising out of CGST cases, it was held “The offences alleged against (c), (f) and (h) of Section 1 Services Tax Act, 2017. The with fine. A charge-sheet ha custody for a period of almos a Court of a Judicial Magistra any case, the prosecution is There are no antecedents. We are surprised to note that has been denied the benefit o High Court and ultimately, Court. These are the cases the Trial Courts, the accused some extra ordinary circumst Appropriate here would also b 7- foresaid provision leaves no doubt th mmitted by the petitioner are punishab ch may extend to 05 years and fin erms of imprisonment is 05 years. their very nature pose threat to th e to be dealt with sternly. Question th circumstances need to be kept in min rant of bail in such economic offence ropriate to refer to recent judgment o in Vs. Union of India (Crimin ut of SLP(Crl.) No.4349 of 2025 t state of affairs with regard to grant o s held as under:- ainst the appellant are under Claus n 132(1) of the Central Goods an The maximum sentence is of 5 yea t has been filed. The appellant is lmost 7 months. The case is triable b istrate. The sentence is limited and is based on documentary evidenc that in a case like this, the appella fit of bail at all levels, including th ely, he was forced to approach th ses where in normal course, befor used should get bail unless there ar mstances.” also be to refer to judgment of Hon’bl ubt that nishable nd fine, t to the tion that in mind ffences. ment of iminal 2025), grant of lauses s and years t is in ble by and in dence. ellant ng the h this before re are on’ble HAMANT 2025.12.20 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- Supreme C Sessions C accused, w ground that loss had be bail the po ruled out. I -44925-2025 -8 eme Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. CB ions Court and the High Court had de sed, who had been alleged of commit nd that the offences are serious, involv had been caused to the Exchequer, as the possibility of accused tampering out. In that context, Hon’ble Supreme “43. When the undertrial pris to an indefinite period, Ar violated. Every person, deta speedy trial, the question is: w present case. There are seven of the witnesses runs to s documents on which reliance voluminous. The trial may tak to us that the appellants, who longer than the period of dete is not in the interest of justic for an indefinite period. No d the appellants is a serious one the State exchequer, that, by enlarging the appellants on contention of the respondent bail, would interfere with th We do not see any good r custody, that too, after the co filing of the charge-sheet. 44. This Court, in the cas 2011(1) RCR (Criminal) Judgments (R.A.J.) 116 : (201 "15. In deciding bail a which should certainly b 8- . CBI, (2012(1) SCC 40), wherein th ad declined the bail applications of th ommitting forgery and cheating, on th involved deep rooted planning and hug uer, as also that if allowed the relief o pering with the evidence could not b preme Court held as under:- prisoners are detained in jail custod Article 21 of the Constitution detained or arrested, is entitled is: whether the same is possible in th eventeen accused persons. Stateme to several hundred pages and th ance is placed by the prosecution, y take considerable time and it loo who are in jail, have to remain in ja detention, had they been convicted. justice that accused should be in ja No doubt, the offence alleged again s one in terms of alleged huge loss t, by itself, should not deter us fro s on bail when there is no seriou dent that the accused, if released o h the trial or tamper with evidenc d reason to detain the accused e completion of the investigation an case of State of Kerala v. Ranee al) 381 : 2011(1) Recent Ape (2011)1 SCC 784, has stated :- ail applications an important facto inly be taken into consideration by th rein the s of the , on the nd huge relief of not be ustody ion is led to in the tement d the ion, is looks in jail ted. It in jail gainst loss to s from erious sed on dence. sed in n and aneef, Apex factor by the HAMANT 2025.12.20 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -44925-2025 -9 court is the delay in con several years, and if th ultimately acquitted, wh his life spent in custody? which is the most basic our Constitution, not vi this is not the only fac important factors in de the present case the r days in custody (as st affidavit), and we see no bail. A doctor incarcera like Dr. Manette in Cha Cities, who forgot his the Bastille. xxx xxx 39. Coming back to t the Courts have refused two grounds :- The p alleged against the a involving deep rooted p loss is caused to the S ground is that the po tempering with the wit charge is that of che delivery of property, fo using as genuine a forg the offence is punishme seven years. It is, no charge may be releva punishment to which the also bears upon the i whether to grant bail, b 9- concluding the trial. Often this tak if the accused is denied bail but d, who will restore so many years tody? Is Article 21 of the Constitutio asic of all the fundamental rights ot violated in such a case? Of cour factor, but it is certainly one of th n deciding whether to grant bail. he respondent has already spent 6 s stated in Para 2 of his counte ee no reason why he should be denie rcerated for a long period may end u Charles Dicken's novel A Tale of Tw his profession and even his name xxx to the facts of the present case, bo fused the request for grant of bail o he primary ground is that offenc e accused persons is very seriou ted planning in which, huge financi the State exchequer ; the seconda possibility of the accused person witnesses. In the present case, th cheating and dishonestly inducin y, forgery for the purpose of cheatin forged document. The punishment hment for a term which may extend doubt, true that the nature of th elevant, but at the same time, th h the party may be liable, if convicte he issue. Therefore, in determinin il, both the seriousness of the charg takes but is ars of tution, hts in course of the ail. In nt 66 unter- denied nd up Two me in , both ail on ffence erious ancial ndary ersons e, the ucing eating ent of end to of the e, the victed, ining harge HAMANT 2025.12.20 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -44925-2025 -10 and the severity of the consideration. 40. The grant or ref discretion of the Cou regulated, to a larg circumstances of each time, right to bail is no the sentiments of the c The primary purposes relieve the accused of im of the burden of keepin the same time, to keep custody of the Cour conviction, to assure jurisdiction of the Cou whenever his presence 41. This Court in Gu AIR 1978 Supreme paramount consideratio grant of bail in non seriousness of the off accused fleeing from ju prosecution witnesses. the fair trial of the cas the High Court in its i same is not convincing. xxx xxx 46. We are conscious charged with economic are also conscious of th proved, may jeopardise the same time, we cann investigating agency ha and the charge sheet is 10- the punishment should be taken in r refusal to grant bail lies within th Court . The grant or denial large extent, by the facts an ach particular case. But at the sam is not to be denied merely because o the community against the accuse oses of bail in a criminal case are of imprisonment, to relieve the Sta eeping him, pending the trial, and eep the accused constructively in th Court , whether before or afte sure that he will submit to th Court and be in attendance thereo nce is required. n Gurcharan Singh and Ors. v. Stat e Court 179 observed that tw rations, while considering petition fo on-bailable offence, apart from th offence, are the likelihood of th m justice and his tampering with th ses. Both of them relate to ensure case. Though, this aspect is dealt b its impugned order, in our view, th ing. xxx cious of the fact that the accused a omic offences of huge magnitude. W of the fact that the offences alleged, rdise the economy of the country. A cannot lose sight of the fact that th y has already completed investigatio et is already filed before the Speci n into in the ial is and same use of cused. are to e State and at in the after o the ereon State, t two on for m the of the ith the ure of alt by w, the ed are e. We ged, if try. At at the gation pecial HAMANT 2025.12.20 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- Supreme C State exche firms, citin punishment Ratnambar documentar in matters p had underg -44925-2025 -11 Judge, CBI, New Delhi custody may not be ne We are of the view that grant of bail pending order to ally the appreh Further still, recently, in Ashut eme Court granted bail in a matter w exchequer of Rs.1032 crore as Input , citing long custody of 09 months a shment in the offence under Section 13 A two Judge bench of th mbar Kaushik’s case (supra), mentary and electronic nature of evide atters pertaining to tax evasion under t ndergone about 4 months of custody, “6. In considering the appli petitioner was arrested on 21. investigation has been comple filed. Even if it is taken note t the petitioner is to the extent a (l)(i), the punishment provid extend to 5 years and fin undergone incarceration for completion of trial, in any Needless to mention that the required to adhere to the diligently participate in the present nature, the evidence would essentially be documen 11- elhi. Therefore, their presence in th e necessary for further investigatio that the appellants are entitled to th ing trial on stringent conditions prehension expressed by CBI.” (emphasis added Ashutosh Garg’s case (supra), Hon’bl atter where the accused defrauded th Input Tax Credit by creating 294 fak nths as well as the fact that maximu tion 132 CGST Act is 05 years. of the Hon’ble Supreme Court , deliberated upon the large f evidence as well as the prolonged tri nder the CGST Act, where the accuse stody, and opined as follows: pplication for bail, it is noted that th 21.07.2022 and while in custody, th mpleted and the charge sheet has bee ote that the alleged evasion of tax b tent as provided under Section 132(1 ovided is, imprisonment which ma fine. The petitioner has alread for more than four months an any event, would take some tim the petitioner if released on bail, the conditions to be imposed an the trial. Further, in a case of th nce to be tendered by the responden umentary and electronic. The ocula in the ation. to the ons in dded) on’ble ded the 94 fake mum ourt in largely trial accused at the dy, the s been tax by 132(1) h may lready s and time. ail, is d and of the ndent ocular HAMANT 2025.12.20 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- the Court s the object offences ca proceed on the exceptio 9. is key-pers input tax c State Exch been in cu department to be rend electronic. under Artic -44925-2025 -12 evidence will be through offic can be no apprehension influencing. Therefore, ke perspective, in the facts and c we find it proper to grant the p 7. Hence, it is directed th bail subject to the conditions which among others, shall als the petitioner to deposit his conditions shall also be impos presence of the petitioner to d is further directed that the p trial Court forthwith, to ensure It thus emerges that even in ca ourt seized of the matter has to go th bject of the Act, the attending circ ces cannot be categorized in one g eed on the presumption that “Denial o eption”. In the case in hand, the allega person in creating/operating firms t tax credit amounting to over Rs.30 Exchequer. These claims are yet to in custody since 06.05.2025, has b rtment. His (petitioner) further detenti rendered by complainant-departmen ronic. The same (further incarceration r Article 21 of the Constitution of Ind 12- official witnesses, due to which ther on of tampering, intimidating o keeping all these aspects nd circumstances of the present cas the prayer made by the petitioner. ed that the petitioner be released o ions to be imposed by the trial Cour ll also include the condition to dire t his passport. Further, such oth posed by the trial Court to secure th to diligently participate in the trial. he petitioner be produced before th nsure compliance of this order.” (emphasis added) n in cases involving economic offence go through the gravity of the offenc g circumstances, etc. Thus, econom one group and the Court should n ial of Bail is the Rule and grant bein allegations against petitioner is that firms and wrongfully availed/passe 30 crores, thus, causing loss to th to be proved. The fact that he ha has been admitted by the responde etention is not justified as the evidenc artment is primarily documentary an eration) would be violative of his rig of India, including right to speedy tri there ng or ts in t case, ed on Court, direct other re the rial. It re the ded) ffences, offence, onomic uld not being that he /passed s to the he has pondent vidence ary and right edy trial HAMANT 2025.12.20 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- and would, incarceratio Dataram (Criminal) 10. to his furni satisfaction shall abide -44925-2025 -13 ould, thus, also be against the princi ceration is an exception” as held m vs. State of Uttar Pradesh inal) 131. Resultantly, petitioner is grant furnishing bail bonds and two sound faction of learned trial Court/Duty Ma abide by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner will surre leave the country with Court. (ii) The petitioner will not the trial. (iii) The petitioner will prosecution witnesses. (iv) The petitioner will appe and every date fixed, u order of Court. (v) The petitioner shall not offence of which, they a which they are suspecte (vi) The petitioner shall no induce, threaten or pro with the facts of the cas disclosing such facts to or tamper with the evide vii) The petitioner shall n liberty. (vii) The petitioner shall f number to the Trial Cou the same till the conclu 13- principle of “Bail is a general rule an held by Hon’ble Supreme Court esh and another, 2018(2) R.C.R granted the concession of bail subje sound sureties of Rs.1 lakh each to th ty Magistrate concerned. The petition ll surrender their passports and will n without prior permission of the tri ll not tamper with the evidence durin will not pressurize/ intimidate th sses. ll appear before the trial Court on eac ixed, unless is exempted by a specif all not commit an offence similar to th they are accused, or for commission o spected of. hall not directly or indirectly coerc or promise to any person acquainte the case so as to dissuade him/her fro cts to the Court or to any police offic e evidence in any manner. hall not in any manner misuse the hall furnish his address and mobi ial Court forthwith and shall not chang conclusion of the trial and in case fo rule and ourt in R.C.R. subject to the etitioner will not the trial e during ate the on each specific ar to the ssion of coerce, uainted er from e officer se their mobile t change case for HAMANT 2025.12.20 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 11. that in case at liberty to 12. herein are l construed a independen 18.12.2025 gbs -44925-2025 -14 any reason, the petitio aforesaid, the same s intimation to the learne for the same. (viii) The trial Court/Duty M condition, as deemed petitioner. Accordingly, the present petiti in case there is any breach of the afore erty to seek cancellation of bail as gran In view of the above, it is cla n are limited for the purpose of prese trued as an opinion on the merits of the endently of the aforesaid observations .2025 Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable 14- petitioners seek to change any of th ame shall be done only with prio learned Trial Court, stating the reaso uty Magistrate may impose any oth emed appropriate while releasing th t petition is allowed and it is made clea e aforesaid conditions, the State shall b as granted to petitioner by this Order. t is clarified that the observations mad f present proceedings and would not b of the case and the trial would procee ations. (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No of the h prior reason y other ing the de clear shall be rder. ns made d not be proceed NEY) HAMANT 2025.12.20 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document