CRM-M No.38830 of 2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 264 CRM-M No.38830 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.07.2026 Sandeep Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Harsh Vasu Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab. SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) : This petition for bail is the second 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.58 dated 18.06.2025 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 316(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Longowal, District Sangrur. 2. The abovementioned FIR came into being in response to a complaint forwarded by the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Society Sangrur, to the Senior Superintendent of Police Sangrur. Vide above mentioned complaint it was reported that large scale financial irregularities were detected during verification of the accounts of members of ‘Togewal Multipurpose Co- operative Agriculture Services Limited’. As per prosecution in response to above mentioned report four member inquiry committee was constituted on 02.06.2025 and that above mentioned committee scrutinized the record of the MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.23 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.38830 of 2026 (O&M) 2 society, pass-book of members and the bank account statements. According to prosecution during the course of above mentioned inquiry it was revealed that petitioner while serving as Secretary of the abovesaid Society had collected money from various members towards their ‘ST account’ and recorded corresponding entries in their pass-books and falsely marked the transaction as ‘nil’ by affixing his initials and did not deposit collected amount in the bank account of the Society. As per prosecution in the above mentioned fashion, the embezzlement of Rs.49,57,195/- was committed. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned inquiry report, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab, has appeared on behalf of respondent-State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. He has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State counsel has orally opposed the present petition. 6. Heard. 7. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent who has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that in a case, which is triable by the Court of Magistrate, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than 01 year and 27 days. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.23 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.38830 of 2026 (O&M) 3 per law enshrined under Section 480(6) Bharatiya Nagrik Surakhsa Sanhita, 2023 after framing of charge the prosecution evidence should have been closed within a period of 60 days, but the same has not been done in the instant case and without any justification the petitioner is suffering from prolonged incarceration. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that this is second petition for bail, and the first petition was not decided on merit as the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 06.03.2026. 8. In addition to above, it has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has clean antecedents, and that allegations with regard to embezzlement of (approximately) Rs.50,00,000/- are proved to be false in view of the fact that the members whose funds were allegedly misappropriated by the petitioner have deposited, more than Rs.39,00,000/- in the account of the Society. While claiming that the trial is taking place at a slow pace and the decision is not likely to take place in near future, 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. According to learned State counsel in the present case there are very specific and categorical allegations against the petitioner that he was responsible for embezzlement of huge amount, which is yet to be recovered. It has been further contended by learned State counsel that the trial is taking place at an appropriate pace, and that the decision in the trial Court could not take place as there is a very long list of witnesses, i.e. 87 witnesses. While claiming that no ground for release of petitioner on bail is made out, the MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.23 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.38830 of 2026 (O&M) 4 learned State counsel has sought for dismissal of present petition. 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 1 year and 27 days; ii) that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate; iii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents; iv) that the investigation in this case is already complete, and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; v) that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, as out of 87 prosecution witnesses only, 5 have been examined so far; vi) that detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose; vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial. 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 MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.23 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.38830 of 2026 (O&M) 5 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 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 MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.23 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.38830 of 2026 (O&M) 6 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 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 MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.23 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.38830 of 2026 (O&M) 7 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; 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 22.07.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.23 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document