222 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-32745-2026 Date of Decision:06.07.2026 Saurabh @ Sourabh …Petitioner Vs. State of U.T., Chandigarh …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Suneet Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Munish Bansal, P.P., U.T., Chandigarh with Mr. Sarasmi Budhiraja, Advocate Mr. Dixit Bhardwaj, Advocate. *** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to grant regular bail to him in case FIR No.07, dated 13.02.2024, registered under Sections 419,420,467,468,471 of IPC {319,318(4),338,336(3),340(2) of B.N.S}. Earlier the FIR was registered under Sections 419,420,467,468,471,120-B of IPC (61 of B.N.S) and 193 of IPC( Section 429 of B.N.S.), at Police Station North Chandigarh. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a victim of fraud committed by his earlier counsel and he had no knowledge with regard to the alleged impersonation or fraud. He further submits that the alleged Marriage Certificate, which was made part of challan, does not bearing the signatures of the petitioner. There is no material to connect him with the commission of crime. Learned counsel further submits that after completion of investigation, challan has already been presented against him and charge was HITESH 2026.07.07 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-32745-2026 -2 framed against him on 15.10.2025. He further submits that the prosecution is intentionally to delay the trial before the Trial Court and only two witnesses have been examined so for. The petitioner was arrested in the present case on 22.09.2024 and is in custody since then. 3. 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 the present petition deserves to be dismissed by this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 5. No doubt, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature, but the petitioner has already suffered custody as an undertrial for a period of 01 year and 10 months. The law is well settled that an accused cannot be confined in jail for an indefinite period as an undertrial prisoner. It is also apparent from the record that only two witnesses have been examined so far, which has violated the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which ensures the speedy trial to an accused as well. Apart from the fact that the accused has incarcerated for a very long period, thus, further custody of the petitioner will not serve any meaningful purpose. 6. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/ Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate. (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 06.07.2026 JUDGE hitesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HITESH 2026.07.07 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh