CRM-M-20605-2026 -1- (215) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-20605-2026 Date of Decision: 17.07.2026 SANDEEP KUMAR ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate with Mr. Sushil Sheoran, Advocate for Mr. Ravinder Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.P. Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL) The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.20 dated 18.01.2025 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 341(1), 341(4), 238(b) of BNS at Police Station City Rohtak. 2. As per the allegations, the petitioner, who is working as a Block Programme Manager with HSRLM, Rohtak, is alleged to have siphoned off ₹ an amount of 4,06,877/- from the account of the "Meri Pehchan Mahila Gram Sangthan Scheme". 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations levelled in the FIR are baseless. As the petitioner is a first-time offender, in custody since JITESH LAL 2026.07.17 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20605-2026 -2- 16.02.2026 but none of the 23 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, he is entitled to the concession of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that the allegations levelled against the petitioner pertain to the siphoning of Government funds. Therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of bail. He, however, concedes that the petitioner is in custody since 16.02.2026 but none of the 23 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. 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.” 7. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner is in custody since 16.02.2026 but none of the 23 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. Therefore, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. There are no serious apprehensions expressed by the State that the petitioner 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 petitioner is not required. JITESH LAL 2026.07.17 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20605-2026 -3- 8. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner-Sandeep Kumar S/o Randhir Singh is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned. 9. The petitioner shall appear before the police station concerned on the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the trial and inform in writing each time that he is not involved in any other crime other than the present case. 10. The petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall prepare an FDR in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and deposit the same with the Trial Court. The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case of the absence of the petitioner from trial without sufficient cause 11. The petition stands disposed of. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE 17.07.2026 JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No JITESH LAL 2026.07.17 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document