CRM-M No.33221 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 256 CRM-M No.33221 of 2026 Date of decision: 16.07.2026 Kaptan Singh ... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Ms. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate and Ms. Khushi Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate, for the complainant. ---- 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 65 13.03.2025 Baldev Nagar, District Ambala 406, 420, 506 and 120- B of IPC 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant Balkar Singh alleging that the MANJU 2026.07.16 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.33221 of 2026 -2- petitioner by representing to him that he was involved in the business of sending people abroad, had induced him to part with a sum of Rs.85 lakhs to settle the complainant as well as his entire family in United States of America. The complainant had given a sum of Rs.8 lakhs to him at the first instance. The petitioner took copies of Aadhar Cards, passports and photographs etc. belonging to his family members and himself and had assured to get visa for America issued. In May 2024, the complainant gave a sum of Rs.12 lakhs to him and then he extracted different amounts of money on 08.06.2024 and 10.06.2024 from him by representing that the formalities for the issuance of visa in his favour were going to be completed shortly. He had handed over some documents to the complainant and had asked him to reach at Delhi Airport along with his family members on 10.06.2024. On reaching there, the complainant, however, found that false and fabricated documents had been handed over by the petitioner to him by extracting a total amount of Rs.32 lakhs with intent to cheat him. When the complainant insisted for repayment of his money, the petitioner issued two cheques for sums of Rs.12 lakhs, which were dishonoured. 3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner who was also lodged in Central Jail, Patiala in connection with another case, was joined into investigation of this case on 17.11.2025 and was formally arrested. On interrogation, he suffered MANJU 2026.07.16 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.33221 of 2026 -3- disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime. An amount of Rs.10,000/- was recovered at his instance. Investigation now stands completed. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has never done the work of sending people abroad. He is a simple agriculturist by profession. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. He has a permanent abode. The dispute between the parties is of civil nature which has been given a criminal colour. His further incarceration will not serve any useful purpose. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He is a habitual offender since as many as nine criminal cases have been registered against him in the past though he has been acquitted in some of them. There are chances of petitioner’s absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 6. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 7. The petitioner in connivance with one more co-accused is alleged to have induced the complainant to part with a sum of Rs.32 MANJU 2026.07.16 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.33221 of 2026 -4- lakhs on the premise of sending his family members and himself abroad and then duping him of the same. The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of offence of cheating as against the petitioner. However, he has been in custody since 17.11.2025. Investigation now stands concluded. The trial will take time as even charges have not been framed. Further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. Due to the fact that he has been involved in other cases, he cannot be denied benefit of bail. 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 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