CRM-M- IN T 110A Suryakant J v. State of Ha CORAM: Present: AARADHN 1. 11.12.202 336(3), 340 Vihar, Guru for grant of 2. criminal co innocent p regarding th from victim funds recei victims wer -61762-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ CHANDIGA akant Jha of Haryana AM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AA Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate Ms. Shweta Nahata, DAG, Ha **** ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) Petitioner, who is an accuse .2024, registered against him unde 3), 340(2), 61(2), 111(1)(iii), 3(5) of r, Gurugram, has filed the present pet rant of bail. In nutshell, the allegation ag inal conspiracy with other accused, c cent persons including the complaina ding their airfare bookings and holiday victims with the promise to provide le s received from them were diverted ms were deprived of their hard earned PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH CRM-M-61762-2025 Date of Decision: 16.03.2026 …Petitioner. …Respondent. CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. vocate for the petitioner. G, Haryana. accused in case FIR No. 290 date under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 33 (5) of BNS, at Police Station Udyo nt petition under Section 483 of BNS ion against the petitioner is that he sed, committed calculated fraud upo plainant by falsely representing the holiday packages. Money was collecte vide legitimate travel service. Howeve erted for some other purposes. Thu earned money. Modus operandi used b .2026 dated 4), 338, Udyog f BNSS at he in d upon g them ollected owever, . Thus, used by GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- petitioner a persons des Company allegation committed and travel f During the had defraud disclosed t were involv Records we by way of Police, Udy Roshni Trip arrest bail. learned Ad order dated for grant of 3. has been e holiday pac company u been falsely business, p -61762-2025 -2- ioner and other accused was that they u ns desirous of going abroad. The tick pany on account of non-payment o ation against petitioner that severa itted by him in the past as well. Se ravel frauds had been committed. Peti ng the course of interrogation, he con defrauded several persons on the pret osed the names of other accused inc involved in this racket and got reco rds were also obtained from various B It further emerges from the st ay of affidavit of Dharamvir Singh, e, Udyog, Gurugram that the wife of ni Tripathi and Kumodanand, have be t bail. Petitioner moved an applicatio Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugra r dated 23.5.2025. Aggrieved of whic rant of bail. Learned counsel for the petitio een engaged in the business of prov ay packages and has been running h any under the name and style of ‘Fa falsely implicated in the present case ess, petitioner’s company used to de they used to issue dummy tickets to th he tickets were cancelled by the Airline ent of travel fare. It is further th several such like frauds had bee ll. Several fake firms had been set u Petitioner was arrested on 27.2.202 e confessed to his involvement that h e pretext of travel bookings. He als ed including his family members, wh t recovered laptop, mobile phones et ious Banks. the status report dated 2.12.2025 file ingh, HPS, Assistant Commissioner o ife of petitioner and his father, namel ave been granted the concession of pr lication for grant of regular bail befo urugram. The same was dismissed vid which, present petition has been file petitioner contends that petitioner, wh f providing Tour and Travel Service ning his business through a registere Fare Fuels Holiday Pvt. Ltd.’, ha t case. For the purpose of running th to deal with some local agencies an ts to the Airlines ther the d been n set up .2.2025. t that he He also rs, who nes etc. filed ioner of namely, of pre- before sed vide en filed er, who ervices, gistered , has ning the cies and GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- bigger con local agen Travels’. communica the dues o tickets of th at premium and were q with the b refund. So Thus, in cr commercia dispute. petitioner i note of the quite remo petitioner w taken in hi useful purp Article 21 would also incarcerati the conditio petition has -61762-2025 -3- conglomerates such as MakeMyTr agency with which petitioner fre els’. The tickets of all the comp unicated to them, but somehow, sin ues of M/s Akbar Travels, the credi ts of the complainants had to be sourc emium rate. In this context, complaina were questioned about their choice as the booking by paying additional a d. Some amount was returned to thos , in crux, submission of learned cou ercial in nature arising out of allege The second leg of argumen ioner is that in the light of investigatio of the fact that the prospect of compl remote, for none of prosecution ioner who was arrested in February, 20 in his favour, for his (P) further in l purpose as the same would not onl 21 of the Constitution of India, also be against the principle of eration is an exception”. Further, pe onditions to be imposed by learned tr has been made. eMyTrip, EasyMyTrip etc. One suc er frequently dealt was ‘M/s Akb complainants had been booked an w, since petitioner was late in clearin credit facility was denied, resultant e sourced from somewhere else that to plainants/customers were also intimate ice as to whether they would continu onal amount or would opt for gettin to those, who opted for the latter optio d counsel is that the dispute is pure alleged non-performance of consum ument raised by learned counsel fo tigations being complete, as also takin completion of trial in the near future ution witnesses have been examine ary, 2025, deserves a lenient view to b ther incarceration would not serve an only be violative of his rights und including right to speedy trial of “Bail is a general rule an petitioner undertakes to abide by trial Court. Prayer for allowing ne such Akbar ed and clearing ultantly that too timated ontinue getting r option. s purely nsumer nsel for o taking future is amined, w to be rve any under but and by all the GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 4. State couns petitioner wrongful money and petitioner. customers, further the remained the relief (P) fleeing overawing petition is 5. documents 6. Court. Fac have been essence bei materia to various par and gravity convicted formula for peculiar fac -61762-2025 -4- Per contra, while opposing the counsel submits that a calculated/sys ioner and other accused, who in cons loss to the innocent customers, and booked their holidays pack ioner. Despite taking the necessary mers, neither the tickets were booked the submission of learned State involved in such like offences in sought for, for if extended the co leeing from the process of justice by awing complainant and related witnes is prayed for. Heard learned counsel for ments on record. It is settled that grant or refus Factors to be kept in mind while been discussed by the Hon’ble Supr being that while exercising powers to Section 483 of BNSS), the Cou para meters including the nature of gravity of offence, punishments to icted, his past antecedents etc. Thus for exercising the discretion and ea facts. the request for grant of bail, learne ed/systematic fraud has been played conspiracy with each other caused mers, who had spent their hard earne packages through the firm run cessary fare/travel charges from ooked nor the money was returned. It State counsel that petitioner who in the past as well, does not deserv concession of bail, likelihood of by not appearing in the Court an witnesses are quite high. Dismissal for the parties and perused refusal of bail is the discretion of while granting the concession of ba Supreme Court in several cases. Th powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (Pa Court has to take into consideratio of the charge, evidence, seriousne be awarded to a person, if he Thus, there can be no straight jack each case has to be examined on learned ayed by aused a earned by the It is has deserve of his and issal of the the bail The Pari deration iousness he is jacket on its GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- SCC 40, ha -61762-2025 -5- Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sa had held as under:- “21. In bail applications, g from the earliest times that th appearance of the accused p amount of bail. The object preventative. Deprivation of punishment, unless it can be r person will stand his trial wh more than verbal respect to begins after conviction, and innocent until duly tried and d 22. From the earliest times, in custody pending completion hardship. From time to time, convicted persons should be secure their attendance at the is the operative test. In this co to the concept of personal libe that any person should be pu upon which, he has not b circumstances, he should be the belief that he will tamp liberty, save in the most extrao 23. Apart from the question a refusal of bail, one must n Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) s, generally, it has been laid dow at the object of bail is to secure th ed person at his trial by reasonab ject of bail is neither punitive no n of liberty must be considered be required to ensure that an accuse l when called upon. The courts ow ct to the principle that punishme and that every man is deemed to b nd duly found guilty. mes, it was appreciated that detentio etion of trial could be a cause of gre ime, necessity demands that some u be held in custody pending trial t the trial but in such cases, `necessit is country, it would be quite contra l liberty enshrined in the Constitutio e punished in respect of any matte ot been convicted or that in an be deprived of his liberty upon on amper with the witnesses if left xtraordinary circumstances. stion of prevention being the object st not lose sight of the fact that an 012) 1 down re the nable e nor red a cused ts owe hment to be ention f great e un- rial to essity' ntrary itution atter, n any n only left at ject of at any GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -61762-2025 -6- imprisonment before convict content and it would be impr as a mark of disapproval accused has been convicted fo un-convicted person for the p imprisonment as a lesson. XXX XXX XXX 46. We are conscious of charged with economic offen also conscious of the fact tha may jeopardize the economy we cannot lose sight of the f has already completed inves already filed before the Sp Therefore, their presence in t for further investigation. We a are entitled to the grant of conditions in order to ally the 47. In the view we have ta refer and discuss other issues for the parties and the case l respective contentions. We cl any opinion regarding the o learned counsel for the parties nviction has a substantial punitiv mproper for any Court to refuse ba val of former conduct whether th ed for it or not or to refuse bail to a the purpose of giving him a taste XXX of the fact that the accused a offences of huge magnitude. We a t that the offences alleged, if prove my of the country. At the same tim the fact that the investigating agenc nvestigation and the charge sheet e Special Judge, CBI, New Delh in the custody may not be necessa We are of the view that the appellan t of bail pending trial on stringe the apprehension expressed by CBI ve taken, it may not be necessary sues canvassed by the learned couns se laws relied on in support of the e clarify that we have not expresse the other legal issues canvassed b rties. nitive e bail er the l to an ste of d are e are roved, time, gency eet is Delhi. essary ellants ingent CBI. ary to ounsel f their ressed ed by GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -61762-2025 -7- 48. In the result, we order t bail on their executing a bond a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to the s CBI, New Delhi on the followi (a) The appellants shall no inducement, threat or promis the facts or the case so as to d to the Court or to any other au (b) They shall remain pres fixed for hearing of the case. I they shall take prior permiss unavoidable circumstances f immediately give intimation t to the Superintendent, CBI permitted to be present throug (c) They will not dispute th case. (d) They shall surrender th surrendered), and in case, th they shall swear to an a surrendered before the Ld. Sp also be supported by an affida (e) We reserve liberty to th application for modification/re der that the appellants be released o ond with two solvent sureties, each he satisfaction of the Special Judg lowing conditions :- ll not directly or indirectly make an omise to any person acquainted wi to dissuade him to disclose such fac er authority. present before the Court on the dat se. If they want to remain absent, the mission of the court and in case es for remaining absent, they sha on to the appropriate court and als BI and request that they may b rough the counsel. te their identity as the accused in th er their passport, if any (if not alread e, they are not a holder of the sam n affidavit. If they have alread . Special Judge, CBI, that fact shou ffidavit. to the CBI to make an appropriate on/recalling the order passed by us, sed on ach in Judge, ke any d with h facts dates t, then ase of shall d also ay be in the lready same, lready should te us, if GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- taking into maximum fact that the the date of the appellan Hon’ble Su -61762-2025 -8- for any reason, the appellants imposed by this Court.” In Bihar Fodder Scam case into consideration the seriousness mum sentence of imprisonment that the appellants were in jail for a of passing of the order, was of the ppellants as pre-trial prisoners would In Dipak Shubhaschandra Supreme Court held as under:- “18. The Court granting bai a judicious manner and not a the stage of granting bail, a and elaborate documentation be undertaken, there is a n reasons for prima facie conclu particularly, where the ac committed a serious offence. consider, among other circum nature of accusation and se conviction and the nature reasonable apprehension of apprehension of threat to the satisfaction of the court in sup the same, the Court while co bail in a non-bailable offence ants violate any of the conditions case, Hon’ble Supreme Court aft usness of the charges alleged and that could he imposed including period more than six months as the view that the further detention ould not serve any purpose. Mehta v. CBI, 2012(4) SCC 13 g bail should exercise its discretion not as a matter of course. Though l, a detailed examination of evidenc tion of the merits of the case need n a need to indicate in such orde ncluding why bail was being grante accused is charged of havin nce. The Court granting bail has cumstances, the factors such as a) th d severity of punishment in case ture of supporting evidence; of tampering with the witness o the complainant and; c) prima fac support of the charge. In addition e considering a petition for grant ence apart from the seriousness of th after the the as on ntion of 134, tion in ugh at idence ed not orders anted, aving has to a) the ase of e; b) ess or facie tion to ant of of the GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- Bureau of to be kept held that Enforceme Chidambar -61762-2025 -9- offence, likelihood of the ac tampering with the prosecutio (emphasis added). Hon’ble Supreme Court in of Investigation, 2023(1) SCC (Cr kept in mind while deciding the bail that the law laid down in P. cement, (2020) 13 SCC 791, mbaram’s case (supra), it was held “Thus from cumulative perusa side including the one render this Court, it could be dedu relating to bail remains the sa is the rule and refusal is the e accused has the opportunity while considering the same aspect which is required to b gravity for the said purpose w facts and circumstances arisin the consequences that would financial irregularities, it ha offences would fall under the in such circumstance while co in such matters, the Court w being sensitive to the nature accused. One of the circumsta e accused fleeing from justice an cution witnesses, have to be noted Satender Kumar Antil v. Centr (Crl.) 1, elaborated upon the facto bail petitions in economic offences an Chidambaram v. Directorate will govern the field. In held as under:- rusal of the judgments cited on eith ndered by the Constitution Bench educed that the basic jurisprudenc he same inasmuch as the grant of ba the exception so as to ensure that th nity of securing fair trial. Howeve me the gravity of the offence is a to be kept in view by the Court. Th ose will have to be gathered from th rising in each case. Keeping in vie uld befall on the society in cases t has been held that even econom the category of “grave offence” an le considering the application for ba rt will have to deal with the sam ture of allegation made against th mstances to consider the gravity of th and oted.” entral factors and of P. either nch of dence of bail at the wever, is an t. The m the n view ses of nomic ” and r bail same, st the of the GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- Singh Alia held that a nonetheless concession -61762-2025 -10 offence is also the term of se offence the accused is alle consideration with regard to which is in addition to the t would be normally applied. I kept in perspective is that eve economic offence, it is not a r every case since there is no enactment passed by the jurisprudence provides so conclusion is that irrespectiv charge, the precedent of ano basis for either grant or refu bearing on principle. But ultim to be on case to case basis o securing the presence of the ac Recently, a Co-ordinate Ben Alias Billa Vs. State of Punjab pa that although an accused may hav theless if the incarceration period ession of bail. “Therefore, to elucidate furth basic and fundamental princip is a part of reasonable, fair an Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be denied to the accus 10- of sentence that is prescribed for th alleged to have committed. Suc d to the gravity of offence is a facto the triple test or the tripod test th ed. In that regard what is also to b even if the allegation is one of grav t a rule that bail should be denied no such bar created in the releva the legislature nor does the ba so. Therefore, the underlinin ective of the nature and gravity another case alone will not be th refusal of bail though it may have ultimately the consideration will hav sis on the facts involved therein an he accused to stand trial.” e Bench of this Court in Neelkam passed in CRM-M-39765-2024 ha y have past criminal antecedents b eriod is long, he is entitled for th further, this Court is conscious of th inciple of law that right to speedy tri ir and just procedure enshrined und tion of India. This constitutional rig ccused as is the mandate of the Ape or the Such factor st that to be grave ied in levant bail lining ity of be the ave a l have in and kamal 024 has nts but for the of the y trial under right Apex GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 7. leading to of this orde petitioner, -61762-2025 -11 court in “Hussainara Kha Secretary, State of Bihar, Pa this, reference can be drawn u the under-trials should be as the nature of accusation and t of conviction and the nature o apprehension of tampering wi threat to the complainant. As f and involvement of the petitio reliance can be placed upon th CRM-M-25914-2022 titled as State of Punjab” decided referring Article 21 of the Co held that no doubt, at the tim antecedents of the petitioner same time it is equally true during the course of trial has t the evidence in that case alo evidence in the other pending adherence to the rule of denia of other cases/convictions in petitioner in a situation of den Reverting back to the facts of to lodging of registration of FIR ha order. In view of submissions adv ioner, but without commenting further 11- Khatoon and ors (IV) v. Hom r, Patna”, (1980) 1 SCC 98. Besid wn upon that pre-conviction period as short as possible keeping in vie nd the severity of punishment in ca re of supporting evidence, reasonab g with the witness or apprehension . As far as the pendency of other cas etitioner in other cases is concerne on the order of this Court rendered d as “Baljinder Singh alias Rock v ed on 02.03.2023, wherein, whi Constitution of India, this Court ha e time of granting bail, the crimin ner are to be looked into but at th rue that the appreciation of evidenc has to be looked into with reference e alone and not with respect to th ding cases. In such eventuality, stri denial of bail on account of pendenc s in all probability would land th f denial of concession of bail.” of the case in hand, factual aspec have already been noticed in para advanced by learned counsel for further on the merits of the case, lest Home esides iod of n view n case nable ion of cases erned, red in ck vs. while rt has iminal at the idence nce to to the , strict dency d the aspects para 2 the lest it GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- may prejud been in prospect of opinion tha rights und trial but wo incarcerati by Hon’ble another, 20 8. to his furn Court/Duty following c -61762-2025 -12 prejudice the trial, taking into conside custody since 27.2.2025, inves of completion of trial in near fut ion that his (P) further incarceration w s under Article 21 of the Constitution but would also be against the princip eration is an exception” as held by H on’ble Supreme Court in Dataram 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131. Resultantly, petitioner is grant is furnishing bail/surety bonds to t t/Duty Magistrate concerned. The wing conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not the trial. (ii) The petitioner will prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall no permission of the trial Court. (iv) The petitioner shall not offence of which, he is an acc he is suspected of. (v) The petitioner shall n induce, threaten or promise to facts of the case so as to dissu facts to the Court or to any evidence in any manner. (vi) The petitioner shall not (vii) The petitioner shall f number to the Trial Court fo 12- onsideration the fact that petitioner investigations are complete but future is bleak, this Court is of th tion would not only be violative of h ution of India, including right to speed rinciple of “Bail is a general rule an d by Hon’ble Supreme Court in as he am vs. State of Uttar Pradesh an s granted the concession of bail subje s to the satisfaction of learned tri The petitioner shall abide by th not tamper with the evidence durin ill not pressurize/ intimidate l not leave the country without prio urt. l not commit an offence similar to th accused, or for commission of whic ll not directly or indirectly coerc ise to any person acquainted with th dissuade him/her from disclosing suc any police officer or tamper with th not in any manner misuse his liberty ll furnish his address and mobi rt forthwith and shall not change th has the s of the e of his speedy le and held and subject ed trial by the during the prior to the which oerce, ith the g such h the berty. obile ge the GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 9. that in case at liberty t order. 10. herein are l construed a independen 16.03.2026 gbs -61762-2025 -13 same till the conclusion of the the petitioner seeks to chang shall be done only with prio Court, stating the reason for th (viii) The petitioner will appe and every date fixed, unless i Court. (ix) The trial Court/Duty M condition, as deemed app petitioner. Accordingly, the present petiti in case there is any breach of the afore erty to seek cancellation of bail as In view of the above, it is cla n are limited for the purpose of prese trued as an opinion on the merits of the endently of the aforesaid observations .2026 Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable 13- f the trial and in case for any reaso ange any of the aforesaid, the sam prior intimation to the learned Tri for the same. appear before the trial Court on eac ess is exempted by a specific order ty Magistrate may impose any oth appropriate while releasing th t petition is allowed and it is made cle e aforesaid conditions, the State shall b ail as granted to the petitioner by th t is clarified that the observations mad f present proceedings and would not b s of the case and the trial would procee ations. (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No eason, same Trial n each der of other g the lear shall be by this ns made d not be proceed NEY) GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document