IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 139 CRM-M-36436-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.07.2026 Date of uploading: 22.07.2026 Abhey Periwal ….Petitioner versus State of Haryana ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG, Haryana. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) CRM-28651-2026 Notice of the application in hand be issued to the respondent- State. On the strength of advance notice; Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties and upon perusal of the record, the application is allowed. It is directed that the necessary correction regarding the newly added Sections, i.e., Sections 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of BNS 2023, be carried out in the headnote as well as in the prayer clause. CRM-28652-2026 Application is allowed, as prayed for. NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.07.22 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-36436-2026 (O&M) CRM-M-36436-2026 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 0138 dated 13.05.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station Ballabgarh Sadar, Tehsil and District Faridabad. 2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out by the petitioner in the present petition) is as follows:- “To, Sh. SHO Sahab, Police Station Sadar Ballabgarh, Subject: Regarding taking legal action against Abhey Periwal for committing cheating and fraud and conspiring against me and grabbing my car earned by hard work. Sir Ji, I Kapil son of Sh. Braham Singh is a resident of village Sotei, Ballabhgarh, Faridabad, Haryana- 121004. I have bought two cars from Abhey Periwal son of Shri Bhanwar Lal Periwal resident of Flat No. 203, Signature Tower, Omex Spa Village, Near Shemrock School, Sector-78, Kheri Kalan, Faridabad, Haryana-121002, one Scorpio N black colour TO225DL4098B worth Rs. 16 Lakh, whose owner as per record is Shalini Yadav S/W/D/0 Rampal Yadav, and one car Thar colour black (UP14FU0016) for Rs. 9 Lakh, whose owner as per record is Surender S/O Bhagmal. The deal to buy both the cars was made with Abhey Periwal in my village Sotai for a total of Rs. 25 Lakh. That Abhey Periwal had told himself to be involved in sale and purchase of vehicles and for running the vehicles by taking on rent, that in this regard I transferred Rs. 7,00,000/- from my father Brahm Singh's HDFC Bank account number 06191000029403 on dated 02/02/2025, Rs. 1,00,000/- on 04/02/2025, Rs.1,00,000/- on 28/02/2025, Rs. 2,00,000/- on 03/03/2025 and Rs. 4,00,000/-on 04.03.2025, in total Rs. 15 Lakh was transferred to Abhey Periwal's INDUSLND Bank account No. 157879610371 and on dated 02/02/2025, Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash was given, in this manner total Rs. 16,00,000/- was given. The remaining payment of Rs. 9 lakh was NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.07.22 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh 3 CRM-M-36436-2026 (O&M) decided to be given at the time of transfer of both the vehicles, which Abhey Periwal had given me Thar vehicle UPI4F00016 on dated 2- 2-2025 and Scorpio N colour black TO225DL40988 on dated 4-3- 2025, both the vehicles were given at my house in village Sotai and the sale letter, agreement and signed documents of the real owner of both the vehicles were given to me at the time of handing over the vehicles. After that on 7-5-2025, I had come to my in-laws' house in Thakurwada Old Faridabad in a Thar vehicle, when at about 2/2.30 A.M 2/3 persons came and the police also came with them, those persons started saying that this Thar UP14FU0016 is ours and we are its real owners, on which I said that I have bought this vehicle from Abhey Periwal, I have also paid the amount for this vehicle to him and Abhey Periwal has also given me the sale letters of the vehicle, on which those persons said that this vehicle is owned by our relative, on which seeing the argument between both the sides the police got the vehicle detained in Police Station Old Faridabad. On dated 8-5- 2025 time around 4/5 PM in evening I had gone to my relative's village Hathin by riding Scorpio car number T0225DL40988, I had parked my Scorpio car here and went to the market. When I came back, my relative told me that 2/3 persons had come with the police and were claiming themselves to be the owners of Scorpio car number T0225DL4098B and they also had the keys, those persons took the car to Hathin police chowki, I also went to Hathin police chowki and on which I said that I had bought this car from Abhey Periwal, resident of Faridabad, and I had also given him the sale amount of the vehicle and Abhey Periwal had also given me the sale letter of the car, on which those persons said that this car is owned by them, on which we had an argument and seeing the argument of both the parties, the police detained the car at Police Chowki Hathin, District Palwal and gave time to both the parties to present the documents. After that I tried to contact Abhey Periwal and even went to his house, but Abhey Periwal could not be found even at his house. That Abhey Periwal committed cheating with me by giving me Scorpio vehicle number T0225DL4098B and Thar vehicle number UPY4F10016 registered in someone else's name, and by not getting registered the vehicles in my name even after taking 16 lakh rupees from me. Legal action may be initiated against NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.07.22 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh 4 CRM-M-36436-2026 (O&M) Abhey Periwal. SD KAPIL Petitioner Kapil son of Shri Braham Singh resident of village Sotai, Ballabgarh, Faridabad 7683090061. Today Police Station On receipt of the above application in the police station, FIR No. 138 dated 13.05.2025 under sections 316(2), 318(4) BNS was registered in Police Station Sadar Ballabgarh. By preparing copies of FIR through computer and sent to the service of Illaqa Magistrate and higher officials through post. A copy of the report along with the original application along with complainant I ASI is leaving for the place of incident. IO-ASI VIKRAM.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 26.05.2025. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question, as the vehicle sold was not to the satisfaction of the complainant- side. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner is implicated into the FIR in question primarily on the ground of his antecedents. He has further submitted that the challan (upon culmination of investigation) already stands presented. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is not in a position to influence the material prosecution witnesses. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has antecedents, insofar as, there are 18 other FIRs registered against the petitioner. She seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 20.07.2026 in Court, which is taken on record. NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.07.22 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh 5 CRM-M-36436-2026 (O&M) 5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 6. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 429, relevant whereof reads as under: “10. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to the goals of community good and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed, the considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom- by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of justice-to the individual involved and society affected. 11. We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence, of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be close to ours, the function of bail is limited, 'community roots' of the, applicant are stressed and, after the Vera Foundation's Manhattan Bail Project, monetary suretyship is losing ground. The considerable public expense in keeping in custody where no danger of disappearance or disturbance can arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the deplorable condition, verging on. the inhuman, of our sub-jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable and a Policy favouring release justly sensible. 12. A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All deprivation of liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction along an anti-criminal direction. Public justice is central to the whole scheme of bail law. Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness should be minimised. Restorative devices to redeem the man, even, through NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.07.22 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh 6 CRM-M-36436-2026 (O&M) community service, meditative drill, study classes or other resources should be innovated, and playing foul with public peace by tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses or committing offence while on judicially sanctioned 'free enterprise,' should be provided against. No seeker of justice shall play confidence tricks on the court or community. Thus, conditions may be hung around bail orders, not to cripple but to protect. Such is the holistic jurisdiction and humanistic orientation invoked by the judicial discretion correlated to the values of our constitution.” 6.1. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as Gurcharan Singh vs. State (UT of Delhi) 1978 (1) SCC 118, has held as under:- “Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond would effect that end.” 6.2. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment tiled as Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, has held as under: “21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.07.22 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh 7 CRM-M-36436-2026 (O&M) contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.” 7. The petitioner was arrested on 26.05.2025 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan has been presented on 21.07.2025. Total 24 prosecution witnesses have been cited and out of which only 3 have been examined till date. The rival contentions raised at the Bar, give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of the 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. As per custody certificate dated 20.07.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 1 year, 1 month and 25 days & is stated to be involved in 18 other FIRs/cases. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.07.22 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh 8 CRM-M-36436-2026 (O&M) decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. To obviate the apprehension of the State that the petitioner has earlier been involved in 18 FIRs and has, thus, reflected his proclivity towards crime, it is deemed appropriate to impose stringent conditions upon the petitioner while releasing him on bail. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. 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 trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/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 Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone 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. (viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof. NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.07.22 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh 9 CRM-M-36436-2026 (O&M) 9. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court/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. 10. Ordered accordingly. 11. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 12. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 22.07.2026 Naveen Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.07.22 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh