Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2026 DAILYLAW 29024 (PNJ)

NITIN SAINI @ NITTEN v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

CRM-M/36603/2026 · 2026-07-14

H S Grewal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-36603-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 238 CRM-M-36603-2026 Date of Decision: 14.07.2026 NITIN SAINI @ NITTEN ... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Balbir Kumar Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1. This petition has been filed for grant of regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C) in case FIR No. 278 dated 28.09.2025 under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 61(2) and 105 of BNS, 2023 (added later on) (corresponding to Sections 406, 420, 120-B and 304 of IPC, 1860 (added later on) and Section 24 of Immigration Act registered at Police Station Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali). 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, in connivance with his co-accused, dishonestly induced the complainant to pay a sum of ₹33 lakhs on the assurance that the complainant's brother would be sent to the United States through lawful means. However, instead of facilitating his travel through a legal route, the petitioner and his co-accused allegedly arranged his illegal migration through the "dunki" route. Before the complainant's brother could reach the United States, he was allegedly found dead in a forest in Texas, USA. RENU RAWAT 2026.07.14 17.33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36603-2026 -2- 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence. He further submits that the matter has been amicably compromised with the complainant. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 12.02.2026 and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Therefore, the continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, and he deserves to be enlarged on regular bail during the pendency of the trial. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate in Court, which is taken on record. He further submits that as per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 04 months and 17 days and is not involved in any other case. 6. Mr. Mohit Jaggi, Advocate appears and filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2 in the Court today and the same is taken on record. He submits that the matter has been compromised and he has no objection if the bail is granted to the petitioner. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that the RENU RAWAT 2026.07.14 17.33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36603-2026 -3- petitioner is in custody for the 04 months and 17 days; he is not involved in any other case; matter has been compromised between the parties coupled with the fact that the trial of the case is yet to commence and continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. 9. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 10. Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 11. It is clarified that if, while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. 14.07.2026 (H.S.GREWAL) renu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No RENU RAWAT 2026.07.14 17.33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh