CRM-M-24367-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 222 CRM-M-24367-2026 Date of decision : 20.07.2026 Date of uploading : 20.07.2026 MAIN PAL ………….Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Dev Kumar Ahlawat, Advocate and Mr. Kailash Ahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Senior DAG, Haryana. --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.14 dated 26.05.2025 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Bureau, District ACB, Rohtak 2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- “Complaint/27/Rohtak/2024 was received vide office of Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Haryana Panchkula's NO. 4032/Complaint/Rohtak/2024 dated 30.01.2024 and Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Rohtak Division, Rohtak's letter NO. 489/C.C/A.C. Bureau/Rohtak dated 29.02.2024 for verification/investigation. Above said complaint was given by Aman Pandey, Value Creature, Plot No. 37, Industrial Area, Bahadurgarh (Haryana) 124507 through registered post regarding wrong transfer of more than an amount of Rs. 01 crore as compensation of land acquisition in village Kasar Tehsil Bahadurgarh in account of Sunil by Sonu Patwari, Joginder Patwari and Kulwant Kanungo in collusion with each other. JATIN 2026.07.20 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24367-2026 -2- 2. During of above said verification/investigation complaint, the address given by complainant Aman Pandey, Value Creature, Plot No. 37, Industrial Area, Bahadurgarh (Haryana) 124507 was found to be wrong. In year 2003, the payment of which was made by office of District Revenue Officer Jhajjar. Thereafter land owners of village Kasar, Jakhonda and Sankhol had filed case in learned court of Sh. M.C. Mehra, Addl. District Judge, Jhajjar for enhancement of compensation, which was decided on 24.03.2009, on which land owners expressed dissent and filed RFA No. 3787 of 2011 in Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh titled Gaje Singh etc. Vs. State of Haryana for enhancement of compensation, which was decided by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh in favour of land owners on 06.11.2015. Thereafter HSIIDC Department Bahadurgarh prepared APR (Amount Paid Register) and sent the same to office of District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Jhajjar. Thereafter office of District Revenue Officer cum Land Acquisition Collector, Jhajjar transferred the amount relating to land acquisition in account of land owners. 3. Rishipal, Harpal and Vijaypal Solanki son of Sh. Nayadar Singh Solanki son of Sh. Ami Lal resident of Dabri, New Delhi had filed case in learned court of Sh. M.C. Mehra, Addl. District Judge, Jhajjar vide LAC No. 305/2005/2008 and thereafter had filed RFA No. 3787 of 2011 titled Gaje Singh etc. Vs. State of Haryana in Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. As per record, the original owners of land measuring 27 kanals 6 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 15, 16 and Killa No. 7/23/2, 7//24, 12/4/2, 4/1, 3 relating to LAC No. 305/2005/2008 were above said Rishipal, Harpal and Vijaypal. Rishipal and Harpal have told that they have got compensation relating to above said land acquisition twice but they have not got compensation third time till daste. APR (Amount Paid Register) relating to enhanced compensation amount of land acquisition were prepared in names Rishipal, Harpal and Vijaypal aforesaid by HSIIDC department and thereafter Sonu Patwari, HSIIDC Bahadurgarh, in collusion with officials/officers of HSIIDC Department and office of Revenue Officer cum Land Acquisition Collector, Jhajjar, without any document, prepared APR (Amount Paid Register) in name of Sunil Kumar son of Raj Singh resident of village Chimni, Tehsil Beri, District Jhajjar, temporary address Flat No. 21, South Avenue, Near Teen Murti, New Delhi and got office of District Revenue Officer cum Land Acquisition Collector Jhajjar transferred Rs. 1,08,74,568 in account No. 917010077746892 of Sunil Kumar. In the above said episode, there is possibility of involvement of Sonu, the then Patwari HSIIDC Bahadurgarh and Sunil Kumar (private person) son of Raj Singh resident of village Chimni, Tehsil Beri District Jhajjar temporary address Flat No. 21, South Avenue, Near Teen Murti, New Delhi besides the officials/officers and other private persons (collusion). Therefore, in above said circumstances recommendation together with report was sent to Additional Director General of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Haryana, Panchkula vide letter No. 1342 dated 01.04.2025 for registration of case FIR under sections 409/419/420/467/468/471/120-B, IPC and 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act against Sonu Patwari HSIIDC Bahadurgarh son of Raj Singh resident of Shiv Mandir Wali Gali, village Karor, Tehsil Sampla, District Rohtak and Sunil Kumar son of Raj Singh resident of village Chimni, Tehsil Beri District Jhajjar temporary address Flat No. 21, South Avenue, Near Teen Murti, New Delhi for embezzlement of Rs. 1,08,74,568/- in collusion with each other and by hatching a conspiracy by preparing false documents and by mis-using official position. The act of Sonu Patwari, HSIIDC Bahadurgarh, in mis-using the public money despite being a public servant, prima facie is an criminal act and it clearly does not come in legal sphere of authorized acts of Public servant. Therefore, permission of 17A as per SOP issued by State Govt. in year JATIN 2026.07.20 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24367-2026 -3- 2022 is not required. Permission has been received vide Additional Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Haryana, Panchkula's letter No. 7665/Complaint/27/Rohtak/2024 dated 01.05.2025 and Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Rohtak Division, Rohtak's diary No. 1574 dated 03.05.2025 to register case FIR under sections 409/419/420/467/468/471/120-B, IPC and 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act against Sonu Patwari HSIIDC Bahadurgarh son of Raj Singh resident of Shiv Mandir Wali Gali, village Karor, Tehsil Sampla, District Rohtak and Sunil Kumar son of Raj singh resident of village Chimni, Tehsil Beri District Jhajjar temporary address Flat No. 21, South Avenue, Near Teen Murti, New Delhi. After registering case FIR, higher officers be informed through telephone, e-mail and special reports be sent to Illaqa Magistrate. Further investigation in case shall be conducted and during investigation, on finding involvement/role/guilt of any Govt. official/officer or any private person, appropriate legal action be initiated against him. Sd/- Rohtash Inspector (Rohtash Kumar), Anti Corruption Bureau, Sub Centre Jhajjar." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 26.01.2026. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further argued that the prosecution case is essentially based on documentary evidence and that there is no chance of the petitioner tampering with the same. Learned counsel has further argued that the co-accused, namely, Sunil, Navdeep, Sonu @ Sonu Kumar and Kulwant Singh @ Kulwant, have been afforded the concession of regular bail. Learned counsel has further submitted that upon culmination of investigation qua the petitioner, challan already presented qua the petitioner. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 17.07.2026 in Court, which is taken on record. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested on 26.01.2026 wherein after JATIN 2026.07.20 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24367-2026 -4- investigation was carried out and challan qua the petitioner stands presented on 15.04.2026. Total 32 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none has been examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. The rival contentions raised by learned counsel give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1 As per custody certificate dated 17.07.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 05 months and 17 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial JATIN 2026.07.20 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24367-2026 -5- Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. Ordered accordingly. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 20.07.2026 jatin Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No JATIN 2026.07.20 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document