CRM-M-9057-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 225/3 CRM-M-9057-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.04.2025 Ranjeet Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU Present: Mr. Shailender Singh, Advocate and Ms. Priya Bhati, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Sheoran, DAG, Haryana. Mr. M. K. Sood, Advocate for the complainant. **** MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU , J. Present petition has been filed, under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of bail pending trial to the petitioner in FIR No.870 dated 23.12.2022, registered under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), at Police Station Sector 8, District Faridabad. 2. Allegations are that petitioner in connivance with co-accused cheated the complainant to the tune of crores of rupees on pretext of a new business startup, by issuing fake and fabricated bills. 3. Contends that petitioner is in custody since 11.12.2024. Also contends that petitioner was not named in the FIR; rather nominated on the basis of disclosure made by co-accused, namely, Rahul on 10.12.2024; final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Rajeev Purohit 2025.04.02 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-9057-2025 2 ‘Cr.P.C’) was presented on 07.03.2025; charges are yet to be considered; thus, conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer on the premise that petitioner and his co-accused induced de facto complainant to deliver a sum of Rs.3.5 crore to them, but not a single penny has been refunded; thus, he does not deserve the concession of bail pending trial at this stage. 5. Heard both sides and perused the paper-book. 6. Concededly, petitioner is in custody since 11.12.2024; final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) was presented on 07.03.2025 and charges are yet to be considered. Even the allegation of duping for crores of rupees is concerned, the same would be matter of trial. 7. Moreover, it is not the objection raised by the State that in case, petitioner is released on bail, he shall influence the witnesses or hamper the course of trial in any manner; thus, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any purpose. 8. Consequently, present petition is allowed; petitioner shall be admitted to bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. 9. Petitioner shall appear on each & every date of hearing and to fully co-operate with the learned trial Court without seeking any unnecessary adjournment(s). 10. The above observations be not construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 11. It is clarified that in case there is recurrence or any misuse of concession of bail on the part of the petitioner, State would be at liberty to Rajeev Purohit 2025.04.02 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-9057-2025 3 move an appropriate application for recalling of this order. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. 01.04.2025 (MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU) Rajeev (rvs) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Rajeev Purohit 2025.04.02 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document