IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.15753 of 2026 Harjit Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent 1. The date when the judgment is reserved 15.07.2026 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 16.07.2026 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 16.07.2026 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced Full 5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof Not applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Raghav Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. *** MANISHA BATRA , J. 1. The instant one is the third petition as filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For MANJU 2026.07.16 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.15753 of 2026 -2- short “BNSS”) seeking regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.361 dated 30.11.2020 registered under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120- B of IPC at Police Station Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali). His previous petitions bearing CRM-M-9396-2024 and CRM-M-63183-2024 had been dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 18.09.2024 and 03.04.2025 respectively. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of complaint submitted by the complainant Baljit Singh alleging therein that he was interested to purchase some land. His nephew introduced him to accused Harjinder Singh and Davinder Singh who further introduced him with Kamaljit Kaur who while representing that she owned agricultural land situated on the main highway of Village Jenetpur and was interested to sell it showed him revenue record of the said land. She also represented that she had executed a general power of attorney in favour of Rinku Singh authorizing him to sell the said land. The accused Rinku Singh and the present petitioner were also accompanying her at that time. The complainant had agreed to purchase the abovesaid land. The sale consideration amount was settled to be @Rs.9 crores. On 29.11.2020, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.5 lakhs to the present petitioner, Kamaljit Kaur and Rinku Singh. It was agreed that on 30.11.2020, he would pay earnest money to the tune of Rs.3 crores. However, on some suspicion having been arisen, he made inquiry and came to know that the female who was representing herself as Kamaljit Kaur was infact Ranjit Kaur who in connivance with the MANJU 2026.07.16 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.15753 of 2026 -3- present petitioner and co-accused Rinku Singh, Harjinder Singh and Davinder Singh had prepared false and fabricated documents qua ownership of the land agreed to be sold to the complainant to cheat him. As such, he prayed for taking action in the matter. 3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The accused Ranjit Kaur, Rinku Singh and Harjinder Singh were arrested on 30.11.2020. Ranjit Kaur suffered disclosure statement to the effect that by conniving with the present petitioner and other accused, she got her Aadhar Card updated in the name of Kamaljit Kaur by getting her photographs affixed on the same. She also got executed a power of attorney in the name of Rinku Singh by using a forged Aadhar Card about her identity. She got the forged Aadhar Card as well as original Aadhar Card recovered. The petitioner was arrested on 17.12.2023. He also suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime. Subsequently, co-accused were also arrested. Investigation stands completed. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since long. No recovery has been effected from him. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. He cannot be denied benefit of bail due to pendency of other cases registered against him. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished a fresh ground to him to seek concession of bail. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. MANJU 2026.07.16 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.15753 of 2026 -4- 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner and the fact that his previous two petitions had been dismissed as withdrawn, the petition does not deserve to be allowed and is not maintainable. 6. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 7. The petitioner in connivance with the co-accused is alleged to have hatched a conspiracy to cheat the complainant and by way of impersonation of Kamaljit Kaur, owner of some land situated at Village Jenetpur through the co-accused Ranjit Kaur. He is alleged to have made the complainant to part with a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as token money for purchase of the abovesaid land. In conspiracy with him and the co-accused, the accused Ranjit Kaur had got prepared a power of attorney in favour of co-accused Rinku Singh. The allegations prima facie make out a case for commission of subject offence as against the petitioner. However, now he has remained in custody for a period of about two and half years. The chances of conclusion of trial in near future are bleak since none out of 16 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. The petitioner stands acquitted in three of the cases registered against him and is on bail in three more cases pending against him. The well settled proposition of law is that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Pre trial incarceration of an accused should not be a replica of post conviction sentencing. The detention prior to trial should not become punitive. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, the MANJU 2026.07.16 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.15753 of 2026 -5- petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned. 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) 16.07.2026 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANJU 2026.07.16 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh