CRM-M-20704-2026 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (225) Date of decision: 16.07.2026 CRM-M-20704-2026 Rajesh Kumar …... Petitioner V/s State of Haryana ...Respondent CRM-M-35147-2026 Dharambir Sharma …... Petitioner V/s State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Shruti Singla, Advocate, Mr. Shrey Sachdeva, Advocate and Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM-M-20704-2026). Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocate and Mr. Sidharth Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM-M-35147-2026). Mr. T.P. Singh, Senior DAG, Haryana. ***** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of two petitions i.e. CRM-M-20704- 2026 and CRM-M-35147-2026 as they arise out of the same FIR. 2. The prayer in these petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of the regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.31 dated 19.12.2023 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 201 IPC (Sections 406 and 409 IPC and Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the KUSUM 2026.07.16 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-20704-2026 ::2:: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were deleted and Section 201 of IPC was added) registered at Police Station, ACB, Haryana. 3. As per the allegations, the petitioners were running a consultancy firm known as Career Education Guide (CEG) Centre at Kaithal. They had opened bank accounts in the names of certain SC/ST students, received the government funds and are alleged to have siphoned off a total amount of Rs.44,59,760/-. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. They could not have possibly siphoned off the money, which has been withdrawn by the students themselves. One student, who was cited as a prosecution witness has been examined and has not supported the case of the prosecution. As the petitioners are in custody since 29.12.2025 but only 05 of the 97 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon, and therefore, they are entitled to the concession of bail. 5. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners do not entitle them to the concession of bail as prayed for. He, however, concedes that they are in custody since 29.12.2025, that only 05 of the 97 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, and that one prosecution witness has not supported the case of the prosecution. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. KUSUM 2026.07.16 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-20704-2026 ::3:: 7. This Court in the case titled as Maninder Sharma Vs. State Tax Officer, State, Mobile Wing, Jalandhar, Punjab bearing CRM-M24033- 2021(O&M) Decided on 31.08.2022 has held as under:- “Therefore, broadly speaking (subject to any statutory restrictions contained in Special Acts) , in economic offences involving the IPC or Special Acts or cases triable by Magistrates once the investigation is complete, final report/complaint filed and the triple test is satisfied then denial of bail must be the exception rather than the rule. However, this would not prevent the Court from granting bail even prior to the completion of investigation if the facts so warrant.” 8. The veracity of the prosecution case against the petitioners and their co-accused shall be adjudicated during the course of the Trial. Admittedly, the petitioners are in custody since 29.12.2025 but only 05 of the 97 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. Therefore, the Trial in the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. The present case is triable by the Court of a Magistrate and no serious apprehension has been expressed by the State that the petitioners would abscond from justice, tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses if granted the concession of bail. Therefore, in this situation, the further incarceration of the petitioners is not required. 9. Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioners, namely, Rajesh Kumar S/o Khazan Chand and Dharambir Sharma S/o Jaikishan Sharma are ordered to KUSUM 2026.07.16 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-20704-2026 ::4:: be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 10. The present petitions stand disposed of. 11. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. 12. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case. 16.07.2026 ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI) kusum JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KUSUM 2026.07.16 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh