CRM-M-25148-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 231 CRM-M-25148-2026 Date of decision: 14.07.2026 JAIBEER SINGH @ JAIBEER NAGAR ......PETITIONER Versus STATE OF HARYANA ..... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Kushager Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Deepali Verma, Asstt. A.G. Haryana. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. 1. This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. This petition has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.87 dated 15.03.2024 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Civil Line Sirsa, District Sirsa. 2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Ankush’, hereinafter being referred to as complainant only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that he had friendship with ‘Harsh’, who told him that his friend ‘Jaibir Nagar’ (the petitioner herein) was having good acquaintance in Railway Department as his relatives were serving there. As per complainant, he was told that ‘Jaibir VIPIN KUMAR 2026.07.15 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25148-2026 2 Nagar’ could securing employment for him in Railway Department. According to complainant, thereafter, he was introduced to ‘Jaibir Nagar’ and he demanded Rs.6-7 lacs for securing as employment for him in Railway. The complainant further alleged that Rs.6.5 lac were paid to ‘Jaibir Nagar’, but ‘Jaibir Nagar’ failed to arrange any employment for the petitioner in the Railway Department and also refused to return the money. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of above-mentioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. As per prosecution, during the course of investigation, it has been found that the petitioner alongwith his co-accused ‘Kartik’ had prepared highly sophisticated forged appointment letter, medical certificate and Identity card, with North Central Railway logo, and continued to cheat the aspirant for job in Railway. 4. Heard. 5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than eleven months and seven days. According to learned counsel for the petitioner except one case for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 140(3), 308(4), 315(2) and 3(5) of BNS, the petitioner has no criminal history. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, and that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant has already been examined and in his examination, he has not supported the prosecution case with regard to involvement of petitioner in the commission of crime. VIPIN KUMAR 2026.07.15 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25148-2026 3 6. The learned State counsel has controverted the above-mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel there are direct allegations against the petitioner with regard to commission of offence of cheating in the name of securing job for the complainant. According to learned State counsel there are allegations of creation of false documents by the petitioner, and that, the offence committed by the petitioner is punishable with life imprisonment. As per learned State counsel in view of gravity of offence the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail. 7. The record has been perused carefully. 8. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision: - i) that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate; ii) that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than eleven months; iii) that investigation in this case is already complete, and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; iv) that the statement of complainant has already been recorded during the course of trial and he has not supported the prosecution case; v) that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; vi) that detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any useful purpose; vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the VIPIN KUMAR 2026.07.15 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25148-2026 4 petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial. 9. 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 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”. 10. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another’ (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “the rate of conviction in VIPIN KUMAR 2026.07.15 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25148-2026 5 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”. 11. 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 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”. 12. 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 the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in “Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354. VIPIN KUMAR 2026.07.15 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25148-2026 6 13. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 14. 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 concession 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 to disclose 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 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 the trial Court. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 14.07.2026 vipin Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No VIPIN KUMAR 2026.07.15 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document