CRM-M-41284- IN THE H (132) DALBIR SINGH STATE OF HAR CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Mr. P Ms. H Mr. V Mr. A MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul registered under S at Police Station, H 2. The a complaint submitt the petitioner alon -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH
INGH Versus
HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS K.P.S. Virk, Advocate and Mr. Partap Singh, Advocate for the pe Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate and Mr. Akash Lather, Advocate for the ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been prefe of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh regular bail in case arising out of F nder Sections 406, 420, 120B IPC (Sec tion, Hansi City, District Hansi. The aforementioned FIR was registe ubmitted by the complainant Dushyan er alongwith the co-accused Manbir S JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-41284-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.03.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA
r the petitioner r the complainant preferred by the petitioner under a Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) ut of FIR No.514 dated 22.08.2024 C (Section 120B was added later on) registered on the basis of a written shyant Malik on the allegations that anbir Singh, Venkat Raman Murthy M) 2026 oner
dent
nder SS”) 2024 r on) ritten that urthy AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.17 19:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-41284- and Kamaludin Kh of Rs.10,45,00,00 Governor of And demanded by them amount of Rs.8,45 father of the co Rs.10,45,00,000/ returned an amou fraud was detected amount of Rs.1 cr from the account accused Manbir S statement admittin the commission o Rs.10,35,00,000/ was arrested on 20 involvement in the 3. It is a falsely implicated accused Manbir S amount of Rs.1 cr or about hatching the complainant. custody since lon -2025 (O&M) 2 din Khan duped Surinder Malik, fathe ,00,000/- on the premise of getting f Andaman and Nicobar. A sum y them. Out of which Rs.30 crores w s.8,45,00,000/- was transferred by wa he complainant and Rs.2 crores in ,000/- had been received by them. amount of Rs.10 lakh to the father etected. During the course of investi s.1 crore had been transferred in the count of the father of the complaina nbir Singh was arrested on 25.08.2 mitting the factum of his involvemen sion of the subject offences and a ,000/- from the father of the compla on 20.03.2025. He too suffered disc t in the crime. Investigation now stand It is argued by learned counsel for t licated in this case only due to bei nbir Singh who had used his bank a s.1 crore without his knowledge abou tching of any conspiracy. He had no inant. The subject offences are tria ce long. His further incarceration , father of the complainant of a sum etting him appointed as Lieutenant sum of Rs.100 crores, had been ores was to be paid in advance. An by way of bank transactions by the es in cash i.e. total amount of them. The accused Manbir Singh father of the complainant when the nvestigation, it was revealed that an in the bank account of the petitioner plainant, who has now died. The 5.08.2024. He suffered disclosure vement as well as of the petitioner in and about grabbing an amount of omplainant. The present petitioner d disclosure statement admitting his stands concluded. l for the petitioner that he has been to being father-in-law of the main bank account for transaction of the e about the nature of the transaction ad no role in inducing the father of re triable by Magistrate. He is in ration would not serve any useful sum nant been . An y the t of ingh the an ioner The sure er in t of ioner g his been main f the ction er of is in seful AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.17 19:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-41284- purpose. Many co benefit of bail. On ingredients for com is, therefore, argue 4. Per co complainant has a His complicity i established. The o has been challeng There are chances of offence or intim of the complainan does not deserve to 5. This C for the parties at co 6. The alleged to have Rs.10,45,00,000/ bank account. Th the nature of the against him are qu not against the co father of the comp -2025 (O&M) 3 co-accused including accused Man ail. On parity, he too deserves to be ex for commission of subject offences ar , argued that he deserves to be released Per contra, learned State counsel assi t has argued that there are serious alle icity in the commission of the su The order qua grant of bail to accuse allenged by the complainant before ances of petitioner’s absconding, caus r intimidating the witnesses, if extend lainant has already expired. It is, ther erve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submis at considerable length. The petitioner by hatching a consp have duped the father of the com ,000/- out of which an amount of Rs nt. The plea as taken by the petitione f the transaction cannot be believed are quite serious in nature as he seem the complainant’s father but against t complainant on the pretext of getting ed Manbir Singh have been extended o be extended the same benefit. The ces are not attracted against him. It eleased on bail. el assisted by learned counsel for the us allegations against the petitioner. the subject offences stands fully accused one of the main co-accused before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. g, causing disappearance of evidence extended benefit of bail. The father s, therefore, stressed that the petition ubmissions made by learned counsel conspiracy with the co-accused is he complainant of an amount of of Rs.1 crore was deposited in his titioner that he was not aware about ieved at this stage. The allegations e seems to have committed offences ainst the State also by inducing the getting him appointed as Lieutenant nded The . It r the oner. fully used ourt. ence ather tition unsel ed is t of n his bout tions nces g the nant AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.17 19:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-41284- Governor of Anda extended benefit o utilizing the princi considered and it money was depos complicity in the petitioner is not e commenced and th undue delay in co the allegations as the attendant facts that the petitioner No compelling gr the same is dismis 7. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 8. Since any, is rendered in 16.03.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 4 f Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Som nefit of bail and the petitioner is see principle of parity as a ground for bai and it cannot be claimed as a matter deposited in the bank account of the in the crime. As such in the conside not entitled to seek any parity with and there is no material on record to in conclusion of the same. Taking in ns as levelled against the petitioner, t facts and circumstances, this Court itioner does not deserve to be extende ing ground has been made out to allo dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the obse d as an expression of opinion of this C t influence the outcome of the trial in a Since the main petition has been dism ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes
  
Some of the co-accused have been is seeking parity. However, while for bail, role of each accused is to be matter of right. A huge amount of of the petitioner showing his active onsidered opinion of this Court, the with the co-accused. The trial has ord to show that there would be any king into consideration the nature of ioner, the part attributed to him and Court is of the considered opinion xtended benefit of bail at this stage. to allow the petition. Accordingly, e observations made above shall not this Court on the merits of the case ial in any manner.
dismissed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE
Yes/No
been hile to be nt of ctive t, the l has any re of and inion tage. ngly, l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.17 19:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.