CRM-M-19649-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 223 CRM-M-19649-2026 Date of decision : 20.07.2026 BUDH RAM YADAV @ AJAY KUMAR ... PETITIONER Versus STATE OF HARYANA .. RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Ajay Ghanghas, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate and Ms. Monisha Lamba, Advocate for the complainant. *** H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.) seeking regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.363 dated 20.11.2024, registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC (corresponding Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) & 61(2) of BNS, 2023), at Police Station Sector-56, Gurugram, District Gurugram. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant purchased a plot measuring 907 square yards situated at Village Wazirabad, Gurugram from Randeep Raj through his GPA holder Rahul Paswan. An agreement to sell was executed on 10.04.2023 and the sale deed was registered on 03.01.2024. Subsequently, the complainant discovered that the GPA had allegedly been revoked on 08.09.2023 and that Randeep Raj had executed another sale deed in SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.22 08.57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-19649-2026 -2- favour of co-accused Mohammad Salman on 23.10.2023. It is alleged that the accused persons, in conspiracy with each other, prepared forged documents, including a forged cancellation of GPA and a forged sale deed, thereby cheating the complainant in respect of the same property. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner is neither a beneficiary of the alleged transaction nor an executant of the disputed documents, but was merely an attesting witness to the GPA dated 06.04.2023 as well as its subsequent deed of revocation. It is further submitted that the dispute is essentially civil in nature, as the complainant has already instituted a civil suit regarding the same property. He also submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 01 year, 04 months and 28 days. He, therefore, prays for release of the petitioner on regular bail as the trial is likely to take a long time because only 02 out of 19 cited prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. 4. Notice of motion. 5. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He has filed the compliance report by way of an affidavit of Mr. Sandeep Inspector, EOW, District Gurugram and the custody certificate in Court, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 01 year, 04 months and 28 days. He, upon instructions, submits that only 02 out of 19 cited prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.22 08.57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-19649-2026 -3- 6. Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and filed the Memorandum of Appearance in Court, which is taken on record. He vehemently opposes the grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner on account of seriousness of the offence. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 01 year, 04 months and 28 days and that the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude as only 02 out of 19 cited prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial as the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. 9. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. 10. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State/complainant would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail. (H.S.GREWAL) July 20, 2026 JUDGE Sonia Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.22 08.57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh