CRM-M-25972-2025 -1- 231 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-25972-2025 Date of Decision:19.08.2025 Gurjant Singh …Petitioner vs. State of Punjab …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. *** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to grant regular bail in case FIR No.2 dated 03.01.2025 registered under Sections 409, 420, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Sections 13(1) and (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, at Police Station Bhogpur, District Jalandhar (Rural). 2. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of the complaint moved by Raj Kumar Gupta, Inspector (Posts), by alleging that the petitioner had misappropriated an amount of Rs.3,41,500/- by forging the signatures of various account holders and caused loss to the Government exchequer. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the present case due to inter-departmental rivalry. He further contends that even the FIR has been registered solely on the basis of the departmental inquiry conducted by the department of the petitioner and no HEMLATA 2025.08.20 01:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25972-2025 -2- investigation was conducted independently to ascertain the facts of the present case. He further contends that the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 04.01.2025 and the challan has been presented and the charge has been framed against him. However, no prosecution witness has been examined so far. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner and he does not deserve the concession of bail by this Court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. In the present case, the petitioner is stated to be in custody for the last 07 months, but no witness has been examined by the prosecution so far. Thus, there are no chances of early conclusion of the trial. Moreover, there is no evidence to indicate that the petitioner is in a position to influence the witnesses of the prosecution. 7. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned. (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 19.08.2025 JUDGE hemlata Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HEMLATA 2025.08.20 01:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document