CRM-M-17042- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT UDAY KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA 1 The date when the 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced 5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment and reasons thereof. CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Prabhsimran Singh, Advocate with Ms. Saloni Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana Mr. Keshav Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. Archit Rana, Advocate for respondent No.3 **** MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. The 483 of Bharatiya of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. -2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH UDAY KUMAR Versus HARYANA AND OTHERS The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment and reasons thereof. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Prabhsimran Singh, Advocate with Ms. Saloni Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana Mr. Keshav Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. Archit Rana, Advocate for respondent No.3 **** MANISHA BATRA, J. The instant petition has been filed of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) in case arising out of FIR No.262 dated 15.09.2025 registered IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-17042-2026 (O&M) ... Petitioner ...Respondents judgment is reserved 20.05.2026 The date when the judgment is pronounced 26.05.2026 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 26.05.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is Full The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Prabhsimran Singh, Advocate with Ms. Saloni Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Keshav Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. Archit Rana, Advocate for respondent No.3 has been filed by the petitioner under Section Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant 262 dated 15.09.2025 registered .. Petitioner s under Section for grant 262 dated 15.09.2025 registered AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.26 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-17042- under Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC at Police Station Sector 56, District Gurugram. 2. The afore complaint moved by M/s. Paryapt Infrastructure Private Limited Company (for short “Company”) through its representative Sehgal associated with Vega Brokerage House accomplices in connivance with each other authorized representatives of the complainant representations, complainant-company complainant had come to know that the petitioner and co false documents showing authorization issued by RERA to create impressions about the legitimacy of their claims and to mislead the prospective buyers, thereby inducing them for payments of money in respect of the project of the complainant and to enjoy unjust enrichment. 3. After registration of FIR, investigat It was revealed that the certificate which was claimed to have been issued by RERA, Panchkula by the petitioner and the co The investigation also showed that the bank account numbers as decla promotion documents ha were used for transfer of substantial amount of money. investigation, the statement of Rakesh Kaul victim i.e. respondent No.3 had been recorded, who -2026 (O&M) 2 under Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC at Police Station Sector 56, District Gurugram. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written moved by M/s. Paryapt Infrastructure Private Limited Company (for short “Company”) through its representative, alleging Sehgal associated with Vega Brokerage House, the present petitioner accomplices in connivance with each other were representing themselves as authorized representatives of the complainant-company and on the basis of such were purporting to sell units of a project launched by the company in the name of “M3M PARAGON 57” at Gurugram. The complainant had come to know that the petitioner and co false documents showing authorization issued by RERA to create impressions about the legitimacy of their claims and to mislead the prospective buyers, thereby inducing them for payments of money in respect of the project of the complainant and to enjoy unjust enrichment. After registration of FIR, investigat It was revealed that the certificate which was claimed to have been issued by RERA, Panchkula by the petitioner and the co-accused was a forged document. The investigation also showed that the bank account numbers as decla promotion documents had been forged by the petitioner and co were used for transfer of substantial amount of money. investigation, the statement of Rakesh Kaul victim i.e. respondent No.3 had been recorded, who disclosed that by trusting the petitioner, and on being allured under Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC at Police mentioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written moved by M/s. Paryapt Infrastructure Private Limited Company (for alleging therein that Tushar Kumar the present petitioner their other were representing themselves as company and on the basis of such to sell units of a project launched by the in the name of “M3M PARAGON 57” at Gurugram. The complainant had come to know that the petitioner and co-accused had circulated false documents showing authorization issued by RERA to create false impressions about the legitimacy of their claims and to mislead the prospective buyers, thereby inducing them for payments of money in respect of the project of the complainant and to enjoy unjust enrichment. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. It was revealed that the certificate which was claimed to have been issued by accused was a forged document. The investigation also showed that the bank account numbers as declared in the y the petitioner and co-accused and were used for transfer of substantial amount of money. During the course of investigation, the statement of Rakesh Kaul victim i.e. respondent No.3 had disclosed that by trusting the petitioner, and on being allured under Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC at Police mentioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written moved by M/s. Paryapt Infrastructure Private Limited Company (for that Tushar Kumar their other were representing themselves as company and on the basis of such to sell units of a project launched by the in the name of “M3M PARAGON 57” at Gurugram. The accused had circulated false impressions about the legitimacy of their claims and to mislead the prospective buyers, thereby inducing them for payments of money in respect of the project ion proceedings were initiated. It was revealed that the certificate which was claimed to have been issued by accused was a forged document. red in the accused and During the course of investigation, the statement of Rakesh Kaul victim i.e. respondent No.3 had disclosed that by trusting the petitioner, and on being allured AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.26 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-17042- by him, he had given an amount of Rs.61,40,000/ buying a unit in M3M Paragon 57 project. When he had asked for copy of the BBA agreement, the petitioner had started wrongly represented to him that there was a unit number as SA Floor of M3M Paragon 57 project, whereas in fact, no such unit was in existence and he had been cheated at the hands of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner was arrested on 20.09.2025. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement admitting that he in connivance with the co accused was defrauding the complainant himself as authorized channel partner in its pr fabricated documents and impersonating fictitious identities, had pursued deception. Investigation now stands concluded. 5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this ca licence issued by RERA project. Rakesh Kaul asked his father to get some property in the and had selected one unit which was purchas The said Rakesh business of the firm of the petitioner Subsequently, the petitioner had incurred losses Rakesh Kaul and himself for online trading and by hatching a conspiracy with the said Rakesh Ka The petitioner is in incarceration since 20.09.2025. The ingredients for -2026 (O&M) 3 by him, he had given an amount of Rs.61,40,000/ buying a unit in M3M Paragon 57 project. When he had asked for copy of the BBA agreement, the petitioner had started making excuses. The petitioner had wrongly represented to him that there was a unit number as SA Floor of M3M Paragon 57 project, whereas in fact, no such unit was in existence and he had been cheated at the hands of the petitioner. he petitioner was arrested on 20.09.2025. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement admitting that he in connivance with the co accused was defrauding the complainant-company by falsely representing himself as authorized channel partner in its project and by preparing false and fabricated documents and impersonating fictitious identities, had pursued deception. Investigation now stands concluded. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, his father who is e issued by RERA, is authorized to sell properties of M3M Paragon 57 . Rakesh Kaul asked his father to get some property in the had selected one unit which was purchased through father of the petitioner. The said Rakesh Kaul had then shown interest to invest business of the firm of the petitioner and had invested Subsequently, the petitioner had incurred losses Rakesh Kaul and himself for online trading and by hatching a conspiracy with the said Rakesh Kaul, the complainant company, has The petitioner is in incarceration since 20.09.2025. The ingredients for by him, he had given an amount of Rs.61,40,000/- to him for the purpose of buying a unit in M3M Paragon 57 project. When he had asked for copy of the making excuses. The petitioner had wrongly represented to him that there was a unit number as SA-P57-0511 at 5th Floor of M3M Paragon 57 project, whereas in fact, no such unit was in existence and he had been cheated at the hands of the petitioner. he petitioner was arrested on 20.09.2025. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement admitting that he in connivance with the co- company by falsely representing oject and by preparing false and fabricated documents and impersonating fictitious identities, had pursued It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been se. In fact, his father who is real estate agent, having to sell properties of M3M Paragon 57 . Rakesh Kaul asked his father to get some property in the said project ed through father of the petitioner. had then shown interest to invest money in trading and had invested money therein. Subsequently, the petitioner had incurred losses on the amount so invested by Rakesh Kaul and himself for online trading and by hatching a conspiracy with ul, the complainant company, has implicated him in this case. The petitioner is in incarceration since 20.09.2025. The ingredients for to him for the purpose of buying a unit in M3M Paragon 57 project. When he had asked for copy of the making excuses. The petitioner had th Floor of M3M Paragon 57 project, whereas in fact, no such unit was in existence he petitioner was arrested on 20.09.2025. On interrogation, he - company by falsely representing oject and by preparing false and fabricated documents and impersonating fictitious identities, had pursued It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been having to sell properties of M3M Paragon 57 project ed through father of the petitioner. in trading money therein. by Rakesh Kaul and himself for online trading and by hatching a conspiracy with implicated him in this case. The petitioner is in incarceration since 20.09.2025. The ingredients for AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.26 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-17042- commission of subjec for further investigation since challan stands presented. The victim Rakesh Kaul has been duly compensated by him and he has no objection if the petition is allowed. The antecedents of the pet conclusion of trial as only 01 out of 11 prosecution witnesses examined so far. His further incarceration would not serve any fruitful purpose. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to b 6. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.2 gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended ben 7. Learned coun controverted the contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has also submitted that a compromise has been arrived at between the petitioner and the respond petition is allowed. 8. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 9. The petitioner is alleged to have projected channel partner in M3M Paragon 57 project and have caused wrongful loss of money to the respondent No.3 Rakesh Kaul on the premise of getting allotted a unit in the above -2026 (O&M) 4 subject offences are not attracted against him. He is not required for further investigation since challan stands presented. The victim Rakesh Kaul has been duly compensated by him and he has no objection if the petition is allowed. The antecedents of the petitioner are clean. There are no chances of conclusion of trial as only 01 out of 11 prosecution witnesses examined so far. His further incarceration would not serve any fruitful purpose. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to b Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has, the contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has also submitted that a compromise has been arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent No.3 and that the latter petition is allowed. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. The petitioner is alleged to have projected channel partner in M3M Paragon 57 project and have caused wrongful loss of money to the respondent No.3 Rakesh Kaul on the premise of getting allotted a unit in the above-named project to him. He is also offences are not attracted against him. He is not required for further investigation since challan stands presented. The victim Rakesh Kaul has been duly compensated by him and he has no objection if the petition is itioner are clean. There are no chances of conclusion of trial as only 01 out of 11 prosecution witnesses, has been examined so far. His further incarceration would not serve any fruitful purpose. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for complainant has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve sel for the respondent No.3 has, however, not the contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has also submitted that a compromise has been arrived at between the that the latter has no objection if the This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel The petitioner is alleged to have projected himself as an authorized channel partner in M3M Paragon 57 project and by representing so, is alleged to have caused wrongful loss of money to the respondent No.3 Rakesh Kaul on the named project to him. He is also offences are not attracted against him. He is not required for further investigation since challan stands presented. The victim Rakesh Kaul has been duly compensated by him and he has no objection if the petition is itioner are clean. There are no chances of has been examined so far. His further incarceration would not serve any fruitful purpose. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for complainant has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve not the contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has also submitted that a compromise has been arrived at between the has no objection if the This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel an authorized is alleged to have caused wrongful loss of money to the respondent No.3 Rakesh Kaul on the named project to him. He is also AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.26 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-17042- alleged to have used forged and fabricated documents like RERA registration certificate and some receipts etc. for the purpose of proving his claim as the authorized channel partner in the project of the complainant company. It is only on thorough assessment definite conclusion as to the commission of the offences of forgery by the petitioner can be out a case for commission of remained in custody since 20.09.2025. The investigation now stands concluded as challan has been filed. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 01 out of 11 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far offences are triable by Magistrate. The antecedents of the petition are clean. It is well settled proposition of law Pre-trial incarceration should not be replica of post object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. this Court is of the opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magis 10. It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner. -2026 (O&M) 5 eged to have used forged and fabricated documents like RERA registration certificate and some receipts etc. for the purpose of proving his claim as the authorized channel partner in the project of the complainant company. It is only on thorough assessment of the evidence to be produced during trial that any definite conclusion as to the commission of the offences of forgery by the petitioner can be drawn and not at this stage. The allegations prima facie make out a case for commission of offence of cheating remained in custody since 20.09.2025. The investigation now stands concluded as challan has been filed. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 01 out of 11 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far offences are triable by Magistrate. The antecedents of the petition are clean. It is well settled proposition of law that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. trial incarceration should not be replica of post object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts this Court is of the opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the titioner at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner. eged to have used forged and fabricated documents like RERA registration certificate and some receipts etc. for the purpose of proving his claim as the authorized channel partner in the project of the complainant company. It is only of the evidence to be produced during trial that any definite conclusion as to the commission of the offences of forgery by the and not at this stage. The allegations prima facie make ng against him. However, he has remained in custody since 20.09.2025. The investigation now stands concluded as challan has been filed. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 01 out of 11 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. The antecedents of the petition are clean. It that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. trial incarceration should not be replica of post-conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the titioner at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner. eged to have used forged and fabricated documents like RERA registration certificate and some receipts etc. for the purpose of proving his claim as the authorized channel partner in the project of the complainant company. It is only of the evidence to be produced during trial that any definite conclusion as to the commission of the offences of forgery by the and not at this stage. The allegations prima facie make against him. However, he has remained in custody since 20.09.2025. The investigation now stands concluded as challan has been filed. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as . The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. The antecedents of the petition are clean. It that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. ng. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot , this Court is of the opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the titioner at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.26 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-17042- 11. Since the any, is rendered infructuous. 26.05.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 6 Since the main petition has been allowed, any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No pending application, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.26 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.