CRM-M-26115-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 232 CRM-M-26115-2026 Date of Decision:16.07.2026 SONU JANEVA ....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL. Present: Mr. Punit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S. (439 of Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 345 Dated 13.06.2025, U/s 406 and 420 of IPC(corresponding sections 316 and 318 of BNS), Registered at Police Station Gharaunda, District Karnal, Haryana, lateron challan was presented under section 406 and 420 IPC and section 24 of Immigration Act. (Annexure P-1), in the interest of justice. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the present FIR was registered on the complaint of Vikas Goswami, who alleged that he had paid a total sum of Rs.20,00,000/- to the accused persons on the assurance that they would facilitate the migration of his brother, Sanjay, to Australia. Initially, the complainant paid Rs.17,00,000/- to co-accused Rahul Pal. Out of the said amount, Rahul Pal allegedly handed over Rs.3,00,000/- to his RENU RAWAT 2026.07.17 16.40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-26115-2026 2 mother and thereafter accompanied the complainant to Jind, where they met co-accused Sonu Janeva, Sanjay @ Bunty and Manjot. It is alleged that Rahul Pal paid Rs.14,00,000/- in cash to Sonu Janeva in the presence of the complainant. The accused persons assured the complainant that in case his brother failed to reach Australia, the entire amount would be refunded. It is further alleged that on 08.07.2023 and 17.07.2023, the complainant transferred an additional sum of Rs.3,00,000/- into the bank account of co- accused Asif Ali. However, instead of sending the complainant's brother to Australia, the accused persons allegedly sent him to Bangkok and dishonestly misappropriated the entire amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. During the course of investigation, a specific role has been attributed to the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the only allegation against the petitioner is that, being a commission agent, he ₹ retained an amount of 14,00,000/- in the capacity of a mediator. It is contended that no role whatsoever has been attributed to the petitioner in sending the complainant's brother to Australia or in arranging or preparing any documents in connection therewith. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant has already recovered his money from the main accused, Rahul and Asif, and has also entered into a compromise with them. However, with the sole intention of extorting additional money, the complainant has falsely implicated the present petitioner in the case. It is RENU RAWAT 2026.07.17 16.40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-26115-2026 3 further submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 30.10.2025. Accordingly, learned counsel prays that the petitioner be enlarged on regular bail during the pendency of the trial. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court today, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 08 months and 14 days and is not involved in any other case. 6. I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record. 7. After hearing the rival contentions and considering the fact that in the case in hand, there is no direct allegation against the petitioner; the petitioner is in custody for the last 08 months and 14 days; is not involved in any other case coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by further incarceration of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted the concession of regular bail during the pendency of the trial. 8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. RENU RAWAT 2026.07.17 16.40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-26115-2026 4 9. Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 10. It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. (H.S.GREWAL) 16.07.2026 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RENU RAWAT 2026.07.17 16.40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh