CRM-M No.35660 of 2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 228 CRM-M No.35660 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.07.2026 Mohit Kumar @ Mohit Saini ......Petitioner Versus State of UT Chandigarh ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Arvinder Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Simsi Dhir, APP for UT Chandigarh. SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) : This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.67 dated 08.05.2024, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 24 of Immigration Act, Police Station Sector 34, Chandigarh. 2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Dinesh Kumar’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above named complainant that ‘Mohit Kumar Saini’ (petitioner herein), his wife ‘Shaveta’ and Mohit's sister induced him to pay money on the false assurance of arranging a work permit in Canada within three months through their immigration agency. As per complainant, believing their assurances, he handed over his passport and paid approximately Rs.18 lakh to MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.11 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.35660 of 2026 (O&M) 2 the accused, out of which about Rs.13 lakh were paid through bank transaction and Rs.5 lakh in cash in installments. As per complainant, despite payment of such a huge amount, neither work permit was arranged nor the complainant's passport has been returned. The complainant further alleged that when he repeatedly demanded his money back, ‘Mohit Kumar’ (petitioner herein) ₹ issued a cheque of 10 lakhs towards partial refund, but the cheque was dis- honoured. As per complainant, thereafter, the accused refused to refund the remaining amount, retained the complainant's passport, and threatened him of dire consequences. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State of UT Chandigarh, Ms. Simsi Dhir, APP for UT Chandigarh has appeared on behalf of respondent-State. Hence, service of notice upon the State of UT Chandigarh is hereby dispensed with. 6. Heard. 7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is in custody since 05.08.2024, and that the trial is taking place at a slow pace. It has also been contended that despite lapse of more than 23 months from the date of arrest of petitioner, out of fourteen prosecution witnesses only five has been examined, so far. [However, it has been clarified by learned counsel for the petitioner that complainant in the present case has already been examined]. While claiming that the trial is not likely to be MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.11 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.35660 of 2026 (O&M) 3 concluded in near future and delay in disposal of trial is violating the right of speedy trial of the petitioner, the benefit of bail on the above mentioned ground has been sought. 8. Learned counsel for the UT Chandigarh has controverted the above mentioned arguments. According to learned counsel for UT Chandigarh, the petitioner is a habitual offender who is already facing prosecution of similar nature in 10 other cases. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the UT Chandigarh that huge money belonging to various victims, has been usurped by the petitioner by adopting fraudulent means, and that in view of gravity of offence the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of concession of bail. 9. The record has been perused carefully. 10. A perusal of record shows that following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision in the present petition:- i) that the petitioner is in custody for a period of more than one year and eleven months; ii) that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate; iii) that the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence is imprisonment up to 7 years; iv) that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as out of 14 prosecution witnesses only 5 have been examined so far; v) that the complainant has already been examined by the trial Court. Thus, there is no chance that the petitioner, if released on bail, will be in a position to influence any material witness; MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.11 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.35660 of 2026 (O&M) 4 vi) that the investigation in this case is already complete, and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; vii) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose; viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial. 11. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another’, (2018) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.11 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.35660 of 2026 (O&M) 5 bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case”. 12. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation’ (2022) 10 SCC 51 are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice”. 13. Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.11 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.35660 of 2026 (O&M) 6 extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently”. 14. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to an undertrial prisoner, as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in ‘Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and another’ 2024 SCC Online SC 4354. 15. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the aforesaid factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 16. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, the abovesaid benefit shall be subject to following conditions:- i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any other authority; ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.11 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.35660 of 2026 (O&M) 7 in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of trial Court. 17. It is, however, made clear that any observation made hereinabove is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 10.07.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.11 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document