Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27640 (PNJ)

HIMANSHU v. STATE OF HARYANA

CRM-M/33583/2026 · 2026-07-08

Virinder Aggarwal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-33583-2026 (O&M) -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (293) CRM-M-33583-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:08.07.2026 HIMANSHU … Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ... Respondent -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Sharma, AAG, Haryana. -.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral) 1. The present is the first petition instituted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to the erstwhile Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) seeking the concession of regular bail in FIR No. 91 dated 10.04.2025 (Annexure P-1), registered under Sections 316(5) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860), to which Sections 238(c), 61 and 215 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 201, 120-B and 215 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) were subsequently added, at Police Station City Sonipat, District Sonipat. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner, Himanshu, was serving as a Senior Associate in the main branch of the State Bank of India and, on a rotational basis, was also entrusted with handling GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.09 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33583-2026 (O&M) -:2:- Government business and bank clearance. It is alleged that the Railways maintained an account with the said branch and that an amount of ₹9,11,896/- , received in cash for deposit into the Railway account, was entrusted to the petitioner. Instead of depositing the said amount, the petitioner allegedly retained the cash in his drawer and issued a forged receipt before proceeding on leave. Upon subsequent enquiry, it allegedly surfaced that the petitioner had misappropriated an aggregate amount of ₹2,05,00,000/- , received in cash for deposit into the accounts of the Railways, GAIL and other entities. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the petitioner came to be arrested on 04.11.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the offences alleged in the present case are triable by the learned Magistrate. It is contended that the petitioner has remained in judicial custody for more than eight months, possesses clean antecedents, and is no longer required for the purposes of investigation, as the investigation stands concluded and the challan has already been presented. It is further submitted that, despite the lapse of considerable time, even the charges have not yet been framed. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petitioner be enlarged on regular bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the present petition and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are grave in nature, involving the alleged embezzlement of more than 2,05,00,000/- (Rupees ₹ Two Crores and Five Lakhs only). It is contended that having regard to the magnitude of the alleged financial fraud and the seriousness of the offences, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Accordingly, dismissal of the petition is prayed for. GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.09 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33583-2026 (O&M) -:3:- 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the paper book with their able assistance. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the offences alleged are triable by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner has remained in judicial custody for more than eight months, has clean antecedents, and the investigation stands concluded with the presentation of the challan. Significantly, despite the lapse of considerable time, even the charges have not yet been framed, which clearly indicates that the trial is proceeding at a snail's pace and is not likely to attain finality in the near future. The right to a speedy trial is an indispensable facet of the guarantee of life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner pending conclusion of the trial would serve no fruitful purpose and would amount to an unwarranted curtailment of his personal liberty. 6.1. Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:- 1. The applicant-petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the investigating agency. GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.09 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33583-2026 (O&M) -:4:- 2. The applicant-petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall he attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness. 3. The applicant-petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event he is in possession of a passport, he shall furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court. 4. The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the applicant-petitioner her permanent residential address as well as his present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law. 5. The applicant-petitioner shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, his Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of his immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance with law. 6. The applicant-petitioner shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in her GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.09 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33583-2026 (O&M) -:5:- residential address or mobile number within seven days from the date of such change. 7. The applicant-petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless her personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. He shall not absent himself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or her unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest. 7. In view of the final adjudication of the present petition, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising therefrom or incidental thereto, shall also stand disposed of. No separate order is called for in respect thereof. ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 08.07.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.09 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document