212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.16887 of 2026 Date of Decision:- 23.07.2026 Jagtar Singh …..Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL ***** Present:- Mr. Kuldeep Bishnoi, Advocate for Mr. S.K. Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Vasundhara Dalal Anand, Sr. DAG, Haryana. VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL) This is the third petition preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.211 dated 07.11.2024 registered under Sections 316(2), 318(6) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short the ‘BNS’), at Police Station Jakhal, District Fatehabad, the first two bail applications having been withdrawn on 25.07.2025 and 27.10.2025 respectively. 2. Custody certificate dated 22.07.2026 filed in Court today, is taken on record. 3. On the complaint of one Shah Roshni, the FIR in question was YAG DUTT 2026.07.23 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M No.16887 of 2026 -2- registered. The allegation is that the petitioner had taken Rs.28 lakhs from the complainant on the promise of securing a job in the Railways. However, no such job was provided. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that the petitioner, without any fault on his part, is in custody for the last 1 year 7 months 2 days; investigation stands completed; final report stands submitted; charges were framed as far back as on 18.07.2025; out of a total 10 prosecution witnesses, not even a single witness has been examined till date. Learned counsel submits that under the circumstances, trial will still take a sufficiently long time and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. As to whether the petitioner has actually committed the offence or not shall be determined when the trial concludes. The petitioner is in custody for the last 1 year 7 months 2 days. The investigation stands completed. Final report has been submitted long back and the charges were also framed on 18.07.2025. Out of a total 10 prosecution witnesses, not even a single witness has been examined till date thereby seriously prejudicing the right of the petitioner to a speedy trial. Thus, trial will still take a sufficiently long time and in the considered opinion of this Court, no YAG DUTT 2026.07.23 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M No.16887 of 2026 -3- useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer. 8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) July 23, 2026 JUDGE Yag Dutt Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No YAG DUTT 2026.07.23 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.