CRM-M-71481- IN THE H (233) SATINDERPAL STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. S MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul registered under S Act added later on 2. The complaint lodged duped of an amo sending his son a were initiated. Th stands completed offences. -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH PAL SINGH @ SHINDER Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Mr. Jasinder S. Sekhon, Advocate for Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been prefe of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh f regular bail in case arising out of nder Section 420 of IPC (Section 13 ater on) at Police Station Sadar Nawan The aforementioned FIR has been odged by the complainant Raghvir Si n amount of Rs.23,50,000/- by the son abroad. After registration of F ed. The petitioner was arrested on 01 pleted and he is facing trial for co JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-71481-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.02.2026 ... Petitioner
...Respondent
ANISHA BATRA
ate for the petitioner preferred by the petitioner under a Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) ut of FIR No.40 dated 29.03.2025 on 13 of Punjab Travel Professional awanshahr, District SBS Nagar. been registered on the basis of vir Singh alleging that he had been y the petitioner on the premise of n of FIR, investigation proceedings on 01.07.2025. Investigation now for commission of aforementioned M) 2026 nder ) 2025 ional is of been e of ings now oned AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.19 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-71481- 3. It is has been made a s lakhs on interest fr sum of Rs.5 lakhs The complainant misusing the same separate proceedin is in custody since His involvement i benefit of bail to purpose. The trial prosecution witnes petition deserves t 4. Status counsel has argue petitioner who ha alluring him on th as two more case chances of his com bail. It is, therefor 5. This C at considerable len -2025 (O&M) 2 It is argued by learned counsel for th de a scapegoat by the complainant, as erest from the complainant way back i lakhs by transferring this amount in th ainant had taken 03 blank cheques e same, he has been falsely implicated ceedings under Section 138 of the Ne y since 01.07.2025. The subject offen ment in other cases cannot be conside ail to him. His further incarceration trial will take considerable time to witnesses has been examined so far. erves to be allowed. Status report and custody certificate h argued that there are serious and sp ho had duped the complainant of on the pretext of sending his son abr e cases of similar nature are registe is committing similar offences or absc erefore, argued that the petition does n This Court has heard the rival submi ble length. l for the petitioner that the petitioner as he had taken a loan of Rs.3.5 back in the year 2023 and had paid a nt in the account of the complainant. eques from the petitioner and by licated in this case and by initiating the Negotiable Instruments Act. He offences are triable by Magistrate. onsidered to be a reason for denying eration would not serve any useful me to conclude since none out of 18 o far. It is, therefore, argued that the icate have been filed. Learned State and specific allegations against the of a huge amount of money by on abroad. He is a habitual offender registered against him. There are or absconding, if extended benefit of does not deserve to be allowed. ubmissions made by both the parties ioner s.3.5 aid a nant. by ating . He trate. ying seful f 18 t the State t the y by nder are fit of rties AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.19 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-71481- 6. The p for further investig be served by de obviously take tim been examined so and jail is an exc conviction sentenc accused during tr consideration the comments on the manner, the petiti bail, subject to his learned trial Court 7. In the petitioner, it shall application seekin 8. Since any, is rendered in 18.02.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 3 The petitioner is in custody since 01 nvestigation as the same stands conclu by detaining the petitioner in custo ake time to conclude as none out of ned so far. It is well settled propositi n exception. Pre-trial incarceration s sentencing. The object of the jail is ring trial, and it cannot be preventi n the above discussed facts but wi n the merits of the case lest the sa petition is allowed and the petitione to his furnishing personal and surety b Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty In the event of there being any FIR t shall be open to the respondent-State seeking cancellation of bail. Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes
   nce 01.07.2025. He is not required concluded. No useful purpose would custody anymore. The trial will ut of 18 prosecution witnesses has oposition of law that bail is the rule ation should not be replica of post- jail is to secure appearance of the eventive or punitive. Taking into but without meaning to make any the same prejudice the trial in any titioner is ordered to be released on urety bonds to the satisfaction of the /Duty Magistrate concerned. y FIR/complaint lodged against the State to seek redressal by filing an een allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
uired ould will s has rule - f the into any any d on f the t the g an n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.19 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.