CRM-M No.30381 of 2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 246 CRM-M No.30381 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.07.2026 Vishal ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikram Singh, AAG, Haryana. SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) : This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.12 dated 16.01.2026 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 61(2), 111(3) and 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar. 2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘SI Jagdeep Singh’. It was reported by the above named police officer that on 16.01.2026 when he was leading a team of police officials he received a tip-off from a reliable source that ‘Rishipal’ former Sarpanch of village ‘Bhure Ka Majra’ along with his associates was involved in the illegal activities of defrauding the common man, by proclaiming that he would double their money. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.22 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.30381 of 2026 (O&M) 2 3. As per above named police officer the modus operandi of the above mentioned group was that they would allure persons by telling them that they had papered counterfeit currency notes and would give double amount of counterfeit currency notes against their money. According to above named police officer whenever a victim used to come to the house of above named accused for doubling of his money, on payment of money by the victim, one of the member of the group would raise alarm that police had arrived for raid, and in such scenario they would force the victim to run away from the back door without bothering for collection of his money. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that the above named police officer further reported that in response to the above mentioned information a raid was conducted at the residence of ‘Rishipal’, but ‘Rishipal’ and his associates managed to escape from the spot through back door of the house by taking advantage of darkness. According to above named police officer in the presence of respectables of the area when search of the house of ‘Rishpal’ was conducted it was found that in bags there were packets of paper, in the size of currency notes, along with note counting machine and three mobile phones, the same were seized and memo in that regard was prepared. 5. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned developments, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation when the petitioner was arrested he suffered a disclosure statement wherein he admitted his involvement in the commission of above mentioned crime. 6. The learned State counsel has filed custody certificate of the MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.22 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.30381 of 2026 (O&M) 3 petitioner. The same be taken on record. Reply already filed by the State, too, be taken on record. 7. Heard. 8. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has nothing to do with the commission of crime, and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of six months, and that investigation in this case is already complete, and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner. While referring to the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI’, 2011(4) RCR (Criminal) 898, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, and that detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose. In view of above, the benefit of bail for the petitioner has been claimed by learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. The learned State counsel has controverted the above mentioned arguments. It has been contended by the learned State counsel that allegations against the petitioner are that he was member of a syndicate involved in illegal activities of cheating the innocent people, and that as contained in the reply in this case the kingpin of the syndicate, namely ‘Rishipal’ and others members of the associates were having ten cases pending against them. The learned State counsel has also contended that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.22 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.30381 of 2026 (O&M) 4 bail. 10. The record has been perused carefully. 11. A perusal of record shows that following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision in the present petition:- i) that the petitioner is in custody for a period of more than 6 months; ii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents; iv) that there is no complainant in this case to support the prosecution case to the effect that he has been subjected to fraud as claimed in the FIR. v) that all the witnesses are police officials, and therefore, this possibility is ruled out that on release on bail the petitioner would be in a position to influence the witnesses; vi) that although Section 111 BNS has been invoked in this case, but in view of the fact that there is nothing on record to show that petitioner is part of any syndicate involved in criminal activity and the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, there is a question mark with regard to applicability of Section 111 of BNS against the petitioner; vii) that the investigation in this case is already complete, and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.22 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.30381 of 2026 (O&M) 5 possession of petitioner; viii) that detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose; ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; x) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial. 12. 12. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another’, (2018) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.22 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.30381 of 2026 (O&M) 6 bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case”. 13. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation’ (2022) 10 SCC 51 are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice”. 14. Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.22 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.30381 of 2026 (O&M) 7 India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently”. 15. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to an undertrial prisoner, as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in ‘Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and another’ 2024 SCC Online SC 4354. 16. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the aforesaid factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 17. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, the abovesaid benefit shall be subject to following conditions:- i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any other authority; MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.22 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.30381 of 2026 (O&M) 8 ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of trial Court. 18. It is, however, made clear that any observation made hereinabove is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 21.07.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.22 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document