is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.288 dated 14.10.2025, registered at Police Station Bawal, Rewari, under Sections 61, 351(3), 340, 338 A, 506, 470, 467 2. custody for is a case of rendition of accounts wherein the cheque was presented him in the account, which had been issued by the father of the complainant and was duly cleared by the bank FIR was lodged stating it to be forged, besides the land in question was returned by are related to each other. the complainant party, for which Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.288 dated 14.10.2025, registered at Police Station Bawal, Rewari, under Sections 351(3), 340, 338, 336(3), 331(4), 318(4) and 305 470, 467, 468, 457, 420 and 380 IPC). Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for the last 2 months and 8 days. He alleges false implication. is a case of rendition of accounts wherein the cheque was presented in the account, which had been issued by the father of the complainant and was duly cleared by the bank FIR was lodged stating it to be forged, besides the land in question was returned by him to the complainant party, who are related to each other. His son in this family the complainant party, for which a criminal Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.288 dated 14.10.2025, registered at Police Station Bawal, Rewari, under Sections , 336(3), 331(4), 318(4) and 305 BNS (Sections 120- , 468, 457, 420 and 380 IPC). Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in He alleges false implication. It is a case of rendition of accounts wherein the cheque was presented by in the account, which had been issued by the father of the complainant and was duly cleared by the bank, however subsequently, the FIR was lodged stating it to be forged, besides the sale deed. Further that, to the complainant party, who family feud was also murdered by criminal case has been registered and PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.05.26 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. they are in custody, a fact stated in the opening line of the FIR. His specimen signatures have also been taken. The case is based on documentary evidence. The offences are triable by the Magistrate. Challan has been presented on 29.04.2026, however, charges are yet to be framed and there are, in all, 13 PWs. He is not involved in any other case. 3. The custody certificate dated 25.05.2026, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 2 months and 8 days. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner of having forged the documents. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case and the petitioner being not involved in any other case. 5. Heard. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, in particular he being in custody for the last 2 months and 8 days; not involved in any other case; hallan stands presented on 29.04.2026, but charges have not been framed and there are total 13 PWs; the trial is likely to take a considerable time and further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, thus the present petition is allowed. 7. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.05.26 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 8. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the conditions imposed by the Court concerned, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order. 9. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations. PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.05.26 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.