CRM-M-32246-2025 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 108 CRM-M-32246-2025 Decided on : 07.08.2026 Vishal Rajput . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Manish Jha, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Ms. Malvika Singh, DAG, Haryana. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:- Name of Petitioner(s) FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station District Vishal Rajput 0087 11.02.2025 S. 406, 420, 120-B of IPC Krishna Gate Thanesar Kurukshetra 2. In the present case, following order was passed on 28.01.2026:- “2. As per the allegations, respondent No.2/complainant had been making monthly investments in a company known as JMB Innovation Private Limited. After investing an amount of approximately Rs.2/2.5 crores, the payment of assured profits was allegedly stopped by the petitioner. Due to non-payment of the assured returns, present FIR came to be registered at the instance of the complainant/respondent No.2, Vikas Goyal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an amount JAWALA RAM 2026.08.10 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32246-2025 - 2 - of Rs.45 lakhs had already been paid back to respondent No.2 prior to the registration of the FIR. It is further contended that subsequent to the registration of the FIR, a further amount of Rs.85 lakhs was paid by mother of the petitioner to respondent No.2 and other co-investors. 4. Counsel for the petitioner further argues that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner to withhold repayment. In this regard, a mutual agreement dated 19.11.2025 was executed between Manju Bail Rajput (mother of the petitioner) and Vikas Goyal (respondent No.2/complainant). 5. It is an admitted position under the said agreement that the remaining balance amount would be paid by the petitioner, once he is afforded an opportunity to come out of jail. Thus, counsel prays for grant of bail to the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant does not dispute the factual assertions advanced on behalf of the petitioner before this Court. However, he expresses a minor disagreement with respect to the exact balance amount that remains unpaid. 7. At this stage, this Court is not required to undergo a detailed examination of each individual payment, particularly while considering the plea for bail. 8. Keeping in view the nature of the dispute and the admitted position that a substantial amount of Rs.1 crore 30 lakhs has already been paid back to respondent No.2/complainant, this Court deems it appropriate to grant a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, by releasing him on interim bail, to enable him to arrange payment of the remaining balance amount. 9. Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be released on interim bail till the next date of hearing, i.e. 06.05.2026 , subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a compromise was also arrived at between co-accused – Ankit Malviya and the complainant on 19.11.2025 and, as per Clause 5 of the said agreement/compromise deed, both the co-accused – Ankit Malviya and the JAWALA RAM 2026.08.10 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32246-2025 - 3 - petitioner were granted concession of interim bail by this Court. However, said concession was misused by the co-accused – Ankit Malviya, who is presently absconding after misusing the interim bail granted by this Court. On the other hand, the petitioner – Vishal Rajput did not flee and, as per the statement made by learned counsel, surrendered before the Jail Authorities on 04.06.2026. Since then, he has been in judicial custody. It is further submitted that the bail petition qua co-accused – Ankit Malviya already stands dismissed vide order dated 27.07.2026, passed in a separate petition. 4. It is an admitted position that the total alleged defrauded amount was approximately Rs.2,60,77,100/-. However, a sum of Rs.1.30 crores has admittedly been paid back to the complainant (including the amount paid prior to the registration of the FIR). To make it more clear, it has been submitted that Rs.45.00 lakhs were paid prior to the registration of FIR, whereas, a further sum of Rs.85.00 lakhs were paid during the pendency of the present petition. It is also informed that, for the last 24 dates of hearing, complainant, who is to appear as PW-1, has been avoiding his appearance for deposing in support of his allegations and, unnecessarily, it is only the petitioner who is lying inside jail, that too, in a dispute primarily arising out of financial transactions between the parties. Petitioner has already undergone an actual incarceration of about 01 year and 19 days inside jail. 5. It also appears that the trial is yet to commence with regard to the recording of prosecution evidence, despite there being 20 prosecution JAWALA RAM 2026.08.10 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32246-2025 - 4 - witnesses, as per the list appended with the final report. Definitely, proceedings arising out of the FIR, and particularly the present bail petition, cannot be kept pending indefinitely, nor can the petitioner be kept behind bars for an indefinite period in such like disputes, especially when the prosecution witnesses are not appearing before the learned trial Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- book. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has already undergone actual custody of about 01 year and 19 days. It is also an admitted position that out of the total alleged defrauded amount of approximately Rs.2,60,77,100/-, a sum of Rs.1.30 crores has already been paid back to the complainant, including the amount paid prior to the registration of the FIR. 8. It has further been brought to the notice of this Court that, for the last 24 dates of hearing, complainant, who is to appear as PW-1, has not stepped into the witness-box and, consequently, the trial has not progressed. As per the final report, there are as many as 20 prosecution witnesses and, therefore, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. 9. At this stage, without commenting upon the merits of the case and keeping in view the period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner, the nature of allegations, the stage of the trial, as well as the fact that petitioner, after availing the concession of interim bail earlier, ultimately surrendered and has remained in custody thereafter, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period during the pendency of the JAWALA RAM 2026.08.10 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32246-2025 - 5 - trial. Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 10. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly. 11. Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. 12. Petition stands disposed of. It is, however, observed that petitioner shall appear before the concerned police station on every fortnight regarding his presence. Misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE August 07, 2026 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2026.08.10 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document