CRM-M-73263- IN THE H (138) BHOLA SINGH STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Mr. R Mr. A MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul registered under S Police Station Bad 2. The a accused on the ba Singh alleging tha had extracted an settlement/closure from where the co -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH
NGH Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Mr. Jashanjot Singh Uppal, Advocate Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab Mr. Arshdeep Singh Brar, Advocate f ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition that has been of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh f regular bail in case arising out of nder Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 4 n Badhni Kalan, District Moga. The aforementioned FIR was initia the basis of a complaint moved by ng that the petitioner, by hatching a co ted an amount of Rs.20 lakh fro losure of the loan account with State B the complainant had availed the loan JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-73263-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.02.2026 ... Petitioner
...Respondent
ANISHA BATRA
vocate for the petitioner Punjab ocate for the complainant been filed by the petitioner under a Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) ut of FIR No.25 dated 27.02.2024 468, 471, 506 and 120B of IPC at initially registered against the co- ed by the complainant Harbhagwan ng a conspiracy with the co-accused, kh from him on the pretext of State Bank of India, Jagraon Branch e loan. The accused Jagwant Singh 2026 nder ) 2024 C at - wan , t of anch ingh AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.24 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-73263- son of Nirmal Sing the complainant re it was not so. Inv amount of Rs.6,4 present petitioner proceedings were arrested on 04.10. alongwith the co offences. 3. It is a falsely implicated nor had asked for brother-in-law i.e. transaction money from his account. investigation purp further incarcerat antecedents. The of bail. On parity broad submissions 4. Per co complainant has had duped the co -2025 (O&M) 2 al Singh handed over a forged and fab nant representing that his loan accoun o. Investigation revealed that out of Rs.6,40,000/- had been got deposited tioner as on 26.06.2020. After regi were initiated. The co-accused were 04.10.2025. Investigation now stands he co-accused is facing trial for the c It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case. In fact, he had nev ed for any money from him. He himse aw i.e. accused Harbans Singh on the money in his account which Harbans count. He is in custody since long. n purposes. The trial will take consid rceration would not serve any use The co-accused Jagwant Singh has parity, he too deserves to be extended issions, it is urged that he deserves to b Per contra, learned State counsel assi s argued that the petitioner in co the complainant to part with a sum o nd fabricated clearance certificate to ccount stood settled, whereas in fact out of an amount of Rs.20 lakhs, an posited in the bank account of the r registration of FIR, investigation d were arrested. The petitioner was stands concluded and the petitioner r the commission of aforementioned l for the petitioner that he has been ad never approached the complainant himself has been cheated by his real on the pretext of receiving business arbans Singh had withdrawn in cash long. He is no more required for considerable time to conclude. His y useful purpose. He has clean h has already been extended benefit tended the same benefit. With these es to be released on bail. assisted by learned counsel for the in connivance with the co-accused sum of Rs.20 lakhs. A forged and te to fact s, an f the ation was ioner oned been inant real iness cash d for His clean nefit these r the used and AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.24 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-73263- fabricated loan c representing the s intimidating the w argued that the pet 5. This considerable lengt 6. The c with a sum of Rs.2 certificate which him are that an am transferred to the b whether the said petitioner by way due to the conniva his bank account. is in custody since to conclude as no fruitful purpose w The well settled Pre-trial incarcera object of the jail is be preventive or p given the nature o -2025 (O&M) 3 oan clearance certificate had been the same to be genuine one. Ther the witnesses or absconding, if exten the petition does not deserve to be allo This Court has heard the rival subm e length. The co-accused are alleged to have in of Rs.20 lakhs and are further alleged t hich was given by them to the compla t an amount of Rs.6,40,000/- as given to the bank account of the petitioner. said amount had been got transferre y way of any inducement made by th onnivance of the co-accused that the s ount. The subject offences are triable y since 04.10.2025. The trial will obv as no prosecution witness has been ose would be served by detaining the proposition of law is that bail is th arceration should not be replica of po jail is to secure appearance of the acc e or punitive. Taking into considerat ture of the allegations as levelled aga been given to the complainant by There are chances of petitioner’s extended benefit of bail. It is thus, be allowed. submissions made by the parties at have induced the complainant to part leged to have forged a loan clearance complainant. The allegations against given by the complainant, had been oner. It is a matter of evidence as to nsferred in the bank account of the by the petitioner himself or it was t the said amount was transferred in triable by Magistrate. The petitioner ill obviously take considerable time been examined so far. As such no g the petitioner in custody anymore. ail is the rule and jail is an exception. of post-conviction sentencing. The he accused during trial, and it cannot sideration the above discussed facts, ed against the petitioner and the part t by s , es at part ance ainst been as to f the was ed in ner time h no ore. tion. The nnot facts, part AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.24 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-73263- attributed to him, made out a case allowed and the furnishing persona Court/Chief Judici 7. In the petitioner, it shal application seekin 8. It is m the purpose of dec on the merits of th 9. Since any, is rendered in 23.02.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 4 him, this Court is of the considered case for release on bail at this stage d the petitioner is ordered to be rel ersonal as well as surety bonds to the Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate c In the event of there being any FIR t shall be open to the respondent to seeking cancellation of bail. It is made clear that any observation of deciding the present petition and t s of the case. Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes
   dered opinion that the petitioner has s stage. Accordingly, the petition is be released on bail subject to his to the satisfaction of the learned trial trate concerned. y FIR/complaint lodged against the dent to seek redressal by filing an vation made herein above is only for and the same shall have no bearing een allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
r has on is his trial t the g an y for aring n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.24 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.