CRM-M No.22428 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 226 CRM-M No.22428 of 2026 Date of decision: 10.07.2026 Ashish ... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate and Mr. Bhanu Bains, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ---- MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:- FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 394 07.07.2025 Old Industrial Area, Panipat, District Panipat 308(2), 308(6), 238 and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNS”) 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition MANJU 2026.07.10 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.22428 of 2026 -2- are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant Rajesh Kumar on 07.07.2025 alleging therein that about ten days back, he had gone to Gohana road for some work when the accused Narendra Pandit who was standing there along with two females, met him and exchanged pleasantries. On asking, he disclosed the names of those two females as Anju Kadian and Pooja. The latter represented that she was an advocate by profession. Both of them took his mobile number. On the very next day, Pooja made call to him and thereafter conversation had started between them. Anju Kadian also came to his hospital for treatment. On 06.07.2025, she called him at her apartment. On her asking, he had gone to her apartment on the same evening. On reaching there, she offered him some cold drink and took him inside her bedroom and asked him to have sexual relationship with her. As soon as, he took off his clothing, two persons reached there who had a scuffle with the complainant and snatched his mobile phone. While proclaiming that they would entangle the complainant in a rape case, abovesaid Anju and those persons demanded a sum of Rs.11 lakhs from him and also called the above named Pooja on phone. She reached there within a short while and asked him to arrange for money. The complainant told them that he would arrange the same and give it by the next day. On the next day also, Pooja called him on his Whatsapp and by extending threat to involve him in a rape case, demanded a sum of Rs.4 MANJU 2026.07.10 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.22428 of 2026 -3- lakhs. 3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The complainant presented a pen drive containing the recording made on his Whatsapp call and also recorded his supplementary statement to the effect that accused Anju, Pooja, one Sonu and one another person had taken a sum of Rs.22,500/- from him at the time of occurrence and had made his video and demanded Rs.4 lakhs for deleting that video. On 09.07.2025, Bhagwan Dass Goyal who was owner of the flat in which the complainant was called, was joined into investigation who presented a loan agreement executed between the wife of accused Sonu @ Sunny and himself on 21.05.2025. Investigation of the case was transferred to CIA. Accused Sonu was arrested and suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime by hatching conspiracy with the co-accused and the petitioner and disclosed that he along with the petitioner was the person who had entered inside the apartment of accused Anju, when the complainant had gone there and had tried to extort money from him by extending threats and by saying that they had prepared a video. The petitioner was nominated as an accused and was arrested on 20.08.2025. He too suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime. Investigation now stands concluded. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of MANJU 2026.07.10 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.22428 of 2026 -4- the co-accused Sonu which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He was not named in the FIR nor he was seen in the CCTV footage of the camera installed at the place of occurrence. He is in custody since long. His antecedents are clean. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 06 out of 19 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be released on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the status report and custody certificate 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. 6. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 7. The petitioner in connivance with the co-accused is alleged to have made an attempt to extort money by putting the complainant in fear of an accusation of having committed the offence of rape. The allegations prima facie make out a case for commission of offence punishable under Section 308(6) read with Section 61 of BNS as against him. The trial has commenced and there is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the same. It is well settled proposition of law that grant of bail is a discretionary relief to be granted or denied based on specific facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be any exhaustive parameter set out for considering the application for MANJU 2026.07.10 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.22428 of 2026 -5- grant of bail. The factors such as nature of accusations, severity of punishment if the accusations entail, conviction and nature of evidence in support of the accusations are to be seen. That apart reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or threatening the material witnesses is also to be weighed. Frivolity of prosecution should also be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that has to be considered in the matter of grant of bail. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Keeping in view the foregoing legal principles and the circumstances as discussed above, this Court finds no compelling ground to allow the petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 8. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (MANISHA BATRA) 10.07.2026 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANJU 2026.07.10 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh